[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
grimlinda@earthlink.net (Linda Grimaldi) writes:
>Once again, I am confused. I like the nice, clean distinction offered
>by another list member- XSD for syntax, RDF and its related standards
>for semantics. But then there are things like element substitution
>and, effectively, subclassing, in XSD that strike me as much too
>closely resembling semantics. Seems to me those kind of things should
>be handled via RDFS/OWL, not XSD.
That makes lots of sense to me.
I think XML's general-purpose nature has frequently been interpreted as
a mandate to treat its structures as objects/RDBMS/whatever. Over time,
object and other semantics wandered into what seemed originally to be a
set of tools for describing markup vocabularies and constraining their
use in documents.
It strikes me as a horrible mess, but I keep hearing people say they
like it, or think they do, or think we're just stuck with it.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
