From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 10/02/01
> [Dan Connolly] > >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). > > > >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. I fail to see how this follows. I would also appreciate a pointer that provides some measure of support for the premise of this inference. (In fact, I would find it very instructive to see a concise, authoritative enumeration of the ``basic requirements of RDF''.) peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST