RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensib
dareo@m... (Dare Obasanjo) writes: >Certain folks have suggested that the new XML syndication format being >worked on by Sam Ruby and others (aka Pie/Echo/Atom/Whatever) should >allow extension elements from other namespaces which is what both RSS >1.0 and RSS 2.0 currently allow. I think there's a little something more to it. When XML follows a certain set of constraints , that XML can be processed as if it was a collection of RDF triples. RSS 1.0 was designed around that principle, and Aaron Swartz appears to be saying  that P/E/A/W can fit into that same structure very easily. As long as the documents stay in that structure, you can treat them as RDF regardless of what namespaces happen to be used in them. >The question then came up as to how one could describe the semantics of >these extension elements and some (I think Danny Ayers specifically) >claimed that RDF and DAML could solve this problem. Once you've read it as RDF triples, DAML, OWL, and whatever other acronyms you like can be applied to it. This is a little different from expecting RDF to provide answers to all namespace-mixing problems, and is probably only useful to people who are (a) willing to process the documents as RDF, not just XML (I'm not) (b) believe that RDF really supplies meaning to information. (I don't.)  - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html  - http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg00101.html -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
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