[
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
|
