From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 10/02/01
>It's also possible to design a language where the type of
>a literal may *depend* on a declaration from an XML schema:
>
> <kr:KRLang xmlns:rdf="http://...new-kr-lang..."
> xmlns:ex="http://example/vocab">
> <ex:Person>
> <ex:name>John Doe</ex:name>
> <ex:shoeSize>10</ex:shoeSize>
> </ex:Person>
>
>so that the "10" above is not a logical constant at all;
>not until you find a/the schema for http://example/vocab
>do you know how to parse/interpret "10"... i.e. the
>meaning of that chunk of XML is dependent on all the
>trust issues around following links from one document
>to another (not to mention a complete implementation
>of XML Schema, an effort several orders of magnitude
>larger than an RDF 1.0 parser).
That is what I was thinking of in an earlier reply to you on this
topic (on rdf-logic), but I didn't fully appreciate the force of the
doctrinal imperative:
>This sort of language is not a candidate for a future
>version of RDF: it fails to meet
>one of the basic requirements of RDF: that an RDF document
>stands on its own as a logical formula.
Ah.
OK, then I will stop going on about it.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST