From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
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 think the point is that it wouldn't follow if RDF were identified
with XML/RDF, but that identification is itself in violation of the
'stand-alone' idea.
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