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

RE: XML/RDF

• To: 'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XML/RDF
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:30:20 -0600

Good enough.  I took it to be a set of easy 
to do items that would make interoperability 
possible.  I note the restrictions (eg, don't 
use container elements) and they don't seem 
that bad.  Items like not using mixed content 
or container elements are *usually* decent advice 
in most schema designs.

I remember a thread on this list in which 
someone said it was easy to make an XML 
document "RDF friendly" and I asked how. 
John replied with a concise answer and no 
one seemed to object.  As a result, I took 
that topic back to the HumanML group and we 
agreed that given the nature of the kinds of
data our language user would collect, this 
was a good idea.  Manos agreed to take on 
this task when the HumanML schema reached a 
further stage of completion.  I didn't view 
this as "supplication".  I am a Democrat. 
Supplications are not in my repetoire.

Transforms are harder to master.  Even if it 
is more powerful, it ain't that friendly. ;-)

As to the backlash, that sort of thing was mild 
compared to standards wars I've witnessed.  Standards 
making is always political.  One gets used to it 
even if never learning to like it.  That is why 
the one piece of advice they gave that would 
seem to be uncontroversial (use namespaces to 
get pieces of other ontologies) actually can 
be very controversial.  It depends on the business, 
the locale, and the state of standardization and 
specification.  Ambitions...

len

From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]

Mike has already expressed some of the thoughts that led to my original
comment. Looking at the article, it seems the intention is to state that
making an application RDF-friendly involves overly restricting ones
markup and supplication to RDF. If I had written such an article, I'd
probably have leaned more towards showing people how to design their XML
documents so it is easy to transform them to RDF using XSLT or some
similar mechanism. 

At least that's what I learned from the backlash against RSS 1.0. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Character Entities: An XML Core WG View
• Next by Date: Re: XML/RDF
• Previous by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Next by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread