OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   RE: [xml-dev] RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Ok.  The serialization issues don't bother me.  Should they?

The comment that use of RDF rules to interpret the XML content 
results in loss of information and misinterpretation does.
Please discuss that further.  What is the most I can expect 
from an RDF processor reading the XML?  I saw John's reply 
on what it can say (this is a property of this... etc.).  

So it seems there has to then be an interpretant that can 
take those "facts" and reason on them.  Yes?  And then 
for the right things to happen, the results of the reasoning 
engine should not contradict the intending meanings of the 
original XML producer?  Yes?   Does the loss of information 
you talk about make it difficult to write such an interpretant?

NOTE To Other Than Manos: 

In the sign system I referred to, a semiote is an interpretant. 
We mean by this, a processor that consumes, interprets, and 
emits signs.  Don't worry about this on XML-Dev.  It is a 
HumanML abstraction for an experiment in applied semiotics. 
We need it because a semiote is not a browser.  It can 
have characteristics modeled on the way humans communicate, 
particularly, that at what in network terms one refers 
to as the physical layer, humans have feelings and emotions. 
See Peircian firstness, secondness and thirdness.  The 
notation of representation isn't as important as what 
is being modeled.  So RDF is fine, schemas are fine, and 
so on.  But it will be very useful if it is possible to 
use a community specific set of labels for capturing 
the information, then making that information available 
to other engines such as predicate logic, natural language 
processors etc.  It's not so good if in doing so, one 
creates potential misinterpretations by those engines.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) [mailto:mbatsis@humanmarkup.org]

RDF has a simple but strict model, meaning the way it's XML is 
de-serialized into triples to form the RDF graph. That's what makes RDF 
processors able of dealing with any RDF. Vanilla XML on the other hand 
is unpredictable in structure (as well as the actual meaning of that 
structure) and levels of depth - from the RDF point of view, XML is 
ugly, low level and meaningless. The operation of viewing any non-RDF 
markup using RDF rules to interpret it will result in loss of 
information and missinterpretation.

Some people may want to look at  [1] for an explanation of the 
differences between RDF and XML.

>To me, this idea that one can make their XML 
>RDF-friendly is pretty powerful as a means 
>of bridging from the common web to the semantic 
>web.
>

If you put it this way, things are different. Producing RDF-friendly XML 
is indeed easier than most people think, John Cowan already covered most 
syntax rules.

Also, converting XML to RDF automatically  is simple, the problem is 
that you will just come up with an RDF serialization of the XML Infoset ;-)

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html




 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS