RDF-Schema (was Re: Why validate?)
david at megginson.com
Thu Nov 18 23:16:09 GMT 1999
Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley at bristol.ac.uk> writes:
> That's longwinded; I'll try again. The current facilities actually
> provided in RDF Schema are roughly as expressive as DTDs, but the
> information model behind what RDF Schema 1.0 gives us is
> more easily extended. For example, much richer constraints for RDF
> schemata should be pretty easy to define once we have an RDF query
> language useable for expressing them.
I agree -- RDF-Schema does the same kind of thing in its domain as
DTDs or XML Schemas do in theirs, but it takes a different approach:
DTDs and other schema proposals, as well as UML, are top-down, while
RDF-Schema is bottom-up. This is a difference in its approach,
though, not in its nature.
My very favourite thing about the RDF model is the fact that
properties are first class things, independent of the classes of the
objects to which they're attached.
> > 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.
> Do you think these can be layered on afterwards in subsequent
> specifications? If so, that's the best place for them.
Absolutely correct. Put what you have now out as soon as you can, and
then collect feedback for v.2 -- I promise to send some detailed
comments *after* RDF-Schema v.1 goes to REC.
All the best,
David Megginson david at 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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev