Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me understand,
 Hi Uche, Uche said: You and Eve seem to be taking the most trivial use of RDF and generalizing it to death. Of course simple directed arcs can be represented as XLinks, but how do you conveniently deal with such useful RDF constructs as Reification Classes/Schema Constraints Anonymous resource handling RDF XML serialization flexibility And such not-so-useful constructs as parse-type about-each and about-each-prefix RDF XML serialization flexibility ;-) To give a very short list Didier replies: The problem actually is not these features per se. And don't misunderstand me, I am not preaching reductionism. Simply that merging both concept could be useful and to keep the other part of RDF as is period. What can be done a) instead od using the about="url" to refer to a resource, why not use href="url" and have xlink to do so. b) to have let rdf class to be inherited as a link behavior can be inherited. This would allows a locator to be an RDF class instance as well as a locator. if (a) is not resolved then and we allow (b) then we end up with something like: <myresource rdf:about="http://www.talvastudio.com" xlink:href="http://www.talvastudio.com"> .... property list here ..... </myresource> The problem is that the link and the resource we are providing meta information is the same. There is probably better to do than that. If we resolve both issues, the construct could be interpreted with an RDF interpreter, an xlink interpreter and any custom interpreter created in XSLT. We gained value period. Uche said: Disagree. I have spent a fair amount of time working over XTM, and I'm convinced, for purely technical reasons (because I could use Topic Maps with no political problems) that XTM is problematic for my needs, though I can see where it is useful. The key thing is that RDF is at a lower level than XTM, and I think a merger would be a serious confusion of paradigms. Didier replies: I not contradict your needs Uche, and maybe XTM do not fulfill them. Nonetheless merging both concepts have some virtues. If its a whole or nothing world, yes I agree with you. On the other hand, if we have some ways to build things by inheritance then we end up with something simple but useful. By the way, how the average XML developer is using all the RDF elements you mentioned? quite a few. this is maybe a time to remember why XML was created, to get a simpler SGML ;-) Antagonism or synergy? a simple choice to do... Cheers Didier PH Martin. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
