Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
 Ok. The serialization issues don't bother me. Should they? The comment that use of RDF rules to interpret the XML content results in loss of information and misinterpretation does. Please discuss that further. What is the most I can expect from an RDF processor reading the XML? I saw John's reply on what it can say (this is a property of this... etc.). So it seems there has to then be an interpretant that can take those "facts" and reason on them. Yes? And then for the right things to happen, the results of the reasoning engine should not contradict the intending meanings of the original XML producer? Yes? Does the loss of information you talk about make it difficult to write such an interpretant? NOTE To Other Than Manos: In the sign system I referred to, a semiote is an interpretant. We mean by this, a processor that consumes, interprets, and emits signs. Don't worry about this on XML-Dev. It is a HumanML abstraction for an experiment in applied semiotics. We need it because a semiote is not a browser. It can have characteristics modeled on the way humans communicate, particularly, that at what in network terms one refers to as the physical layer, humans have feelings and emotions. See Peircian firstness, secondness and thirdness. The notation of representation isn't as important as what is being modeled. So RDF is fine, schemas are fine, and so on. But it will be very useful if it is possible to use a community specific set of labels for capturing the information, then making that information available to other engines such as predicate logic, natural language processors etc. It's not so good if in doing so, one creates potential misinterpretations by those engines. len -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) [mailto:mbatsis@h...] RDF has a simple but strict model, meaning the way it's XML is de-serialized into triples to form the RDF graph. That's what makes RDF processors able of dealing with any RDF. Vanilla XML on the other hand is unpredictable in structure (as well as the actual meaning of that structure) and levels of depth - from the RDF point of view, XML is ugly, low level and meaningless. The operation of viewing any non-RDF markup using RDF rules to interpret it will result in loss of information and missinterpretation. Some people may want to look at [1] for an explanation of the differences between RDF and XML. >To me, this idea that one can make their XML >RDF-friendly is pretty powerful as a means >of bridging from the common web to the semantic >web. > If you put it this way, things are different. Producing RDF-friendly XML is indeed easier than most people think, John Cowan already covered most syntax rules. Also, converting XML to RDF automatically is simple, the problem is that you will just come up with an RDF serialization of the XML Infoset ;-) [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html 
|
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
|
|||||||||
