[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Ok. The serialization issues don't bother me. Should they?
>
Yes! Not only the serialization, but also the de-serialization...Just
for fun, wrap a document of yours (choose one with some namespace
declarations in it...) in an RDF document and validate it against the
W3C validator. Notice the URIs that form and tell me how you are going
to deserialize them!
>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?
>
Yes, IMHO authoring for both worlds will be error prone, unless you
reach a point where you are actually writing RDF that is also usefull as
plain XML (DCMI for example ;-)
Cheers,
Manos
>
>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
>
>
>
>
|
