Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
grimlinda@e... (Linda Grimaldi) writes: >Once again, I am confused. I like the nice, clean distinction offered >by another list member- XSD for syntax, RDF and its related standards >for semantics. But then there are things like element substitution >and, effectively, subclassing, in XSD that strike me as much too >closely resembling semantics. Seems to me those kind of things should >be handled via RDFS/OWL, not XSD. That makes lots of sense to me. I think XML's general-purpose nature has frequently been interpreted as a mandate to treat its structures as objects/RDBMS/whatever. Over time, object and other semantics wandered into what seemed originally to be a set of tools for describing markup vocabularies and constraining their use in documents. It strikes me as a horrible mess, but I keep hearing people say they like it, or think they do, or think we're just stuck with it. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
