Re: Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL
Hi Roger, > - Allow (and encourage!) diversity of physical expression. > - that is, create instance documents in a style > which meets your needs/desires. This is a very good idea. However, can it be fully realised within the constraints imposed by using RDF/XML? In the example that you give, of SLR vs. Camera and focal-length vs. size, there were some constraints that could not be changed, regardless of the ontology use. For example, both examples use: <optics> <Lens> ... </Lens> </optics> While they may *rename* the Lens element, it is not possible for them to *omit* the Lens element and place focal-length and f-stop directly under optics, as this would break the striping convention of RDF/XML. So my question is, do you intend your interoperability through ontology scheme to stop at element renaming? If so, this does not seem to "realise the flexibility of XML", but rather to realise the flexibility of RDF/XML, which is another beast entirely. Cheers, Michael
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format