RDF-Schema (was Re: Why validate?)

[David Megginson]

Michael Erdmann writes:

 > In Robins mail about the semantic level of XML as well as what
 > David and Tim write about the inadequacy of DTD to represent
 > meaning, I missed any references to RDF/RDF-Schema (BTW a REC and a
 > PR of W3C), that ---as I understand--- exactly are aimed at
 > providing a formal, ontological, shareable semantics in the world
 > of XML.

Or, you could argue that RDF-Schema simply defines a different kind of
structure -- instead of saying what elements may contain, it says what
classes properties may appear in.  It's the same thing, then, but in a
more specific problem domain (the object world).

That said, I'm a big RDF-Schema fan -- it's quite readable, and I'm
finding some serious interest in both RDF and RDF-Schema out there in
the business world.  I'd very much like to see RDF-Schema go to REC,
even though it's missing some things I think I need.

 > Or do I got something completely wrong. 
 > 
 > Or is XML-DEV not the right place to argue in favor of RDF/RDFS?

This is the best place.  There's also an rdf-dev list, but nobody
posts to it.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)