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

Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFutu

• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:02:11 -0500

Martin Bryan wrote in part -

The problem is that
> neither RDF or Topic Maps have a requirement of the supply of any
> human-readable descripition of the meaning of any referenced subject.
>
This is one of the reasons that I strongly disagree with requirements, for
either RDF or Topic Maps, that subjects (or their equivalents) have to be urns
or some kind of address.   They ought to be able to just be data (like
strings). If you want machine-readable terms for inference or hyperlinking,
fine, use them.  If you want text phrases for humans to read on a display, use
strings ( or data: urns).  Don't restrict the map creator.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" =TheFuture]
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
    • From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Ordering of child nodes after parsing
• Next by Date: A Light Rant On Ontological Commitment
• Previous by thread: Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
• Next by thread: Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" =TheFuture]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread