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

Re: XML Schema and ontologies

• To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Subject: Re: XML Schema and ontologies
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:20:12 +0100
• Cc: Murali Mani <mani@C...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3F7A0897.7040806@o...>
• References: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0309301305100.29279-100000@p...> <3F7A0897.7040806@o...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> The current problem in integrating XML Schema with RDF/OWL _XML_ 
> datatypes is that RDF is entirely based on naming things with URIrefs 
> (and hence OWL), whereas XML Schema names things (i.e. schema 
> components) with QNames. A reasonable integration requires a coherent 
> QName -> URI mapping.

Add ws-arch to that. I believe they were leaning towards QNames.


> So, I'd say the answer is that there is no great technical impediment to 
> better integrating XML Schema (and RELAXNG for that matter) with the 
> Semantic Web via RDF datatypes, but unless there is an interest voiced 
> (other than mine) in the proper forums, that the (perhaps) relatively 
> small amount of work to accomplish this might not get done.

Models et al aside, it doesn't help that QNames have no sanctioned 
syntax. What would be mapping against?

Bill de hÓra

• References:
  • XML Schema and ontologies
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
  • Re: XML Schema and ontologies
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>

• Prev by Date: More on ontolgies and/or PageRank (tm)
• Next by Date: Re: Managing Innovation
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schema and ontologies
• Next by thread: RE: XML Schema and ontologies
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread