[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Then the point made that RDF is a machine friendly but somewhat
unnatural way to represent knowledge has some merit.
It sounds as if when we stripe the RDF namespace into the XML,
we get partial benefits. Better than nothing but not the best
in strict terms of what an RDF system can deliver. Also, one
may want to know the document type to determine if a set of
rules can be created to cover issues such as the meaningfulness
of the containment relationships. It seems that less and less
can be done without a priori knowledge of the document type.
Hmmm... perhaps some other forms of KR should be investigated
as well.
len
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@comcast.net]
The problem, if it is a problem, is that the relationship in XML between an
element and its children is no more or less than "containment" or
"childhood" or some such notion. Any other relationship or meaning that you
want to assign cannot come from the markup structure itself. It is like
having a labeled graph where some of the arcs are missing labels. You can
still construct the graph, but you have to guess at or infer the labels.
With good practices, good naming conventions, etc., you could have a
processor infer those things reasonably well, thus extracting metadata as
you say. But it is not totally cut and dried.
Cheers,
Tom P
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
