[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
But this is still cool. Tools that could provide
assistance to striping the RDF into the XML open
up a lot of content to the SemWeb processors without
asking producers to spend a lot of effort understanding
RDF. The result seems obvious; predicate logic
engines can do their voodoo on not-so-arbitrary XML
with just a little cooperation from the producers.
That seems like a win to me, and a less is more
approach. Am I missing something here?
BTW: other lists take up the issues of shortcomings
with the use of predicate logic for knowledge representation.
I don't want to do that here. I am only noting that
for efforts that want to work with say, XML Schema or
DTDs, this looks like a way to have one's cake and
eat it too.
I realize this is obvious, but is this right?
In DTD or schema design, one is often taking
terms of a community of understanding (their argot)
and using these as markup GI and attribute names.
This is how one makes XML, human-friendly, not by
making it friendly to any human anywhere anytime, but
by making it friendly to a group of humans at sometime
and someplace. Content tagging is not making it
semantically neutral to people and machines, but
making it semantically specific to those that
subscribe to that semantic by that label. We
know the problems of doing that (WAI, etc.).
RDFing the file is just a way to get the gold
out of the vault without breaking down the
tomb walls. It leaves a path for visitors
to enter, comment, and make assertions, but
leave the hieroglyphs as found. Lifecyle
wise, that seems smart.
len
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
RDF and XML *are* different planets. RDF is a general-purpose
knowledge-representation framework that can be serialized in XML; but
its relationship to XML is not any tighter than any other custom
vocabulary aimed at any other particular problem space. -Tim
|
