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

Re: RDF and RELAX NG

  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Subject: Re: RDF and RELAX NG
  • From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@b...>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:02:40 +0100
  • Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
  • In-reply-to: <r02000000-1026-BC51E06ED43D11D7BC220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
  • References: <20030819122509.2f0390ad.dave.beckett@b...> <r02000000-1026-BC51E06ED43D11D7BC220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

rdf.rng
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:12:44 -0400
"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> wrote:

> Earlier this week, dave.beckett@b... (Dave Beckett) wrote:

well, a few weeks ago.  I've been busy releasing RDF software[*] :)

> >As far as any XML schema language is appropriate for general RDF/XML
> >with it's open use of XML Namespaces, RelaxNG is the one I'd suggest is
> >most appropriate (compared to for example W3C XML Schemas which is more
> >of a closed/complete DTD style).   
> 
> This discussion has connected with a number of other conversations to
> leave me wondering whether RELAX NG might prove to be more than a schema
> language capable of of validating RDF/XML, but indeed a schema language
> which eases the conflicts at the boundaries between RDF and XML.

I've thought similar things myself.

> RDF/XML has taken a lot of flak lately.  On the one hand, it offers too
> many options, so developers who want to work with RDF data using XML
> tools face a pretty frustrating task, even before getting into the risks
> of processing graphs with tree-oriented tools.  On the other hand,
> trying to make XML vocabularies RDF/XML compatible is not much fun
> either.  Some aspects of this [1] don't even seem like good markup
> practice to me, especially things like "eschew mixed content", the use
> of RDF-namespaced attributes in host vocabularies, and container issues.

The RDF/XML complaints are well known, even the unjustified ones :)

I didn't think all of [1] was particularly a good idea.  Mixed content
in XML is a key feature and important for end-user markup.  Although
it's transportable by RDF/XML, that's probably not the main point.

Where you want to essentially annotate some XML file/format and connect
it to an RDF approach, it seems better to give only a minimal change to
the "host" language.  That tends to indicate either what could be
considered an XML schema annotation style or a match and transform
approach, something like using XSLT or Schematron.

> We can struggle along with this, sure.  RDF and XML seem stuck in a
> lousy marriage at this point, each disappointing the other on a regular
> basis.  Mark Pilgrim's done a nice job [2] of delineating various ways
> in which this conversation often flows, tying it to the
> Pie/Echo/Atom/etc. project's concrete challenges.  It seems like there
> should be some way of at least separating those issues in practice.
> 
> It may be very naive of me to think this, but something keeps telling me
> that RELAX NG's patterns and RDF's graphs may be able to talk to each
> other in ways that go well beyond the rdf:parseType attribute or XSLT
> transforms between attribute names in a local vocabulary and the rdf:ID,
> rdf:about, etc.  I suspect (though I'm still working it out, and don't
> know nearly enough to be certain) that RELAX NG annotations could be
> sufficient to provide a complete mapping from an unchanged XML
> vocabulary to a set of RDF graphs.

Sounds an interesting idea but I have not investigated this area myself.

> In some ways, this feels perverse, as it uses something of a PSVI
> approach to define a mapping between the XML and its RDF reading.  At
> the same time, however, RELAX NG patterns feel flexible enough to
> support RDF's many possibilities and to express the different graphs
> which may appear given different co-occurrence constraints.  (I'm not
> proposing RELAX NG as a general RDF schema language - I don't think that
> would work.  This is _just_ about mapping XML to RDF graphs.)
>
> I don't yet have anything concrete to show, I'm afraid, so this is
> pretty much playing a hunch.  Anyone have the same hunch?  Anyone have
> reasons why this is obviously impossible?  Possible?
> 
> [1] - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html
> [2] - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/08/20/dive.html

Yes, at this point I'd need some examples.

I was wondering if this is a place for PIs similar to how they are used for stylesheets in XML
where the mapping-to-triples schema can be hidden away and still
available to those things that understand it.
  <?rdf-mapping href='http://example.org/blah-rdf.rng' type='application/xml'?>
  <blah>
    ...
  </blah>

(I was reminded by http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54 which is an RDF
schema with XSLT->XHTML sheet specified)

Dave

[*] Redland http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.