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

Re: Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL

• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• Subject: Re: Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL
• From: Michael Day <mikeday@y...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:56:41 +1000 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3E9C2EC6.789A130@m...>

Hi Roger,

> - Allow (and encourage!) diversity of physical expression.
>      - that is, create instance documents in a style 
>        which meets your needs/desires.

This is a very good idea. However, can it be fully realised within the
constraints imposed by using RDF/XML?

In the example that you give, of SLR vs. Camera and focal-length vs. size,
there were some constraints that could not be changed, regardless of the
ontology use. For example, both examples use:

<optics>
  <Lens>
    ...
  </Lens>
</optics>

While they may *rename* the Lens element, it is not possible for them to 
*omit* the Lens element and place focal-length and f-stop directly under 
optics, as this would break the striping convention of RDF/XML.

So my question is, do you intend your interoperability through ontology 
scheme to stop at element renaming? If so, this does not seem to "realise 
the flexibility of XML", but rather to realise the flexibility of RDF/XML, 
which is another beast entirely.

Cheers,

Michael

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• References:
  • Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: stability
• Next by Date: Re: specialized list construct. suggestions?
• Previous by thread: Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL
• Next by thread: Re: Avoiding Syntactic Rigor Mortis using OWL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread