[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d

• To: "'Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)'" <mbatsis@h...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:06:51 -0500

Understood.   But mapping may be necessary or acceptance 
of the limits of striping.  It's a case of half-measures 
where half-measures are adequate.   It is also a design 
issue.  If one is designing new vocabularies rather than 
shoe horning legacy vocabularies, designing with the SW 
in mind from the beginning would appear to be a good idea.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) [mailto:mbatsis@h...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> one 
>may want to know the document type to determine if a set of 
>rules can be created to cover issues such as the meaningfulness 
>of the containment relationships.   It seems that less and less 
>can be done without a priori knowledge of the document type.
>

True and I wouldn't want to go through mappings between the document 
structure and it's RDF counterparts for each different case. Sounds 
inconvinient and very error prone.

>Hmmm... perhaps some other forms of KR should be investigated 
>as well.
>

One will have to map any form of KR to markup anyway, unless an XML 
serialization for it already exists so I think I'll stick to what I have 
for now ;-)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
    • From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@h...>

• Prev by Date: RE: namespace reprise
• Next by Date: Re: namespace reprise
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• Next by thread: Re: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread