Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: Nikita Ogievetsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:54:56 -0700 (MST)
> > <MyOriginElement rdf:ID="origin1">
> > <incstyle:remotestyle>
> > <rdf:Alt>
> > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="WML" xlink:href="wml.xslt"/>
> > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="IE5" xlink:href="ie.xslt"
> > incstyle:param="version=5"/>
> > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="IE4" xlink:href="ie.xslt"
> > incstyle:param="version=4"/>
> > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="other" xlink:href="default.xslt"/>
> > </rdf:Alt>
> > </incstyle:remotestyle>
> > </MyOriginElement>
> > Again, I even included a few bonuses, and it's still quite simple. Of
> > course it does illustrate another of RDF's annoyances: that you must
> > have a namespace on all attributes if you wish to them to be considered
> > abbreviated properties.
> OK, syntax looks nice. How about the meaning of it?
There's a land mine. What do you mean by "meaning"?
> I would wonder to see the RDF schema behind "incstyle" namespace.
> Please agree that no graph can be built for your example without knowing the
The schema is an important part of the graph, but I do think you might
overstate it a bit. Anyway, you have used one of the dreaded "S" words.
By "schema", do you mean
1) Data type constraints?
2) Relational constraints?
3) Processing plan?
> How do you know that WML is "Wireless Markup Language"
??? Maybe I'm missing something.
<vocab:full>Wireless Markup Language</vocab:full>
> and not "Woman Man Love"?
> And how do you know that sheet is an XSLT stylesheet and not ...
I know because I'm human and I have context to go on. The machine knows
because I have defined a binding between the particular symbol and a
processing plan. Where is the problem?
> > Your statement makes me wonder how you understand the role of
> > RDF. I get the impression that you might not realize that they are
> > simply a database and list-processing convenient representation of the
> > RDF abstract model, which is a graph, just like TM's.
> Yes, but because XTM allows n-ary associations there are less nodes in
It sounds as if you are saying that because XTM allows n-ary relationships
as a first-class construct that it is more efficient? I could possibly
buy that, except that I know that even though the RDF spec itself only
allows n-ary relationship to be expressed through indirection, that its
extensibility makes this distinction meaningless.
Efficiency is a matter of implementation. If I am worried about
instantiating additional nodes with RDF I can enact a processing plan that
minimizes this. For instance, I could create an anonymous resource that
forms the "hub" of the relationship.
> Well ... I must confess that I was also getting "the impression that you
> might not realize that "
> nothing is hardcoded in Topic Maps :-))
You are correct that I got the wrong impression from your statements. I
have no problem admitting this. I'm learning here, just as I imagine you
> By the way, if it sounds that I dislike RDF for some reason, it is wrong.
> I believe that there are certain things that are better in RDF and certain
> things that are better in Topic Maps. I hope that this discussion can make
> this distinction a little clearer.
Same here. But I never doubted that this is a syncretic discussion.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python