Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I am not very familiar with RDF, Ditto. Just general impressions. > but in my opinion, RDF sits > on top of xml > schemas, and actually is for a different purpose. I think it > is more to > define semantics of much larger granularity than xml schemas, and > semantics that are typically not defined in xml schemas -- > for example, > semantics like the who created a web page, or saying > something like this > collection of web documents form a "community" -- so now > search engines > can make use of such metalevel information for better results > -- this is > building the semantic web... RDF has struck me as saying more about the relationships between types than XML Schema; it's more relationship focused. I'm not sure if that's apparent or real in the case of RDF, but certainly there seems, in general, to be a dichotomy between schema languages that focus on the defininition of entities and those that focus on the relationship between entities, although every schema language has a little of both. I'm not sure why this dichotomy exists, because it certainly seems plausible that a schema language can be fully and flexibly descriptive of both entities and entity relationships. Maybe its that such schema languages exist but have been less than successful.
|
