[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If I read your reply correctly, this is exactly the way I see it. Most XML instance documents do not have to use the RDF (and associated standards) vocabulary. It would lead to pretty bloated and, a priori, incomprehensible XML if they did. Plus it wouldn't do much for cross-schema inference. Relationships captured in an ontology server provide the basis for inference against vanilla XML instance documents. It seems to me this is what RDF is all about and, when applied appropriately, a lot of the "XML vs RDF" arguments more or less go away. It all depends on what level you are working at- instance or ontology.
> >Can "DAML +OIL" replace "XML"?
Is this another homework question?
The semantics of most (if not all) XML languages can be represented in
DAML+OIL, there's no need to get rid of the XML version - it's working on
a
different layer. If you're starting from scratch, then an RDF/XML
(+DAML+OIL
or OWL if necessary) representation might well be worth considering for
interchange rather than or as well as vanilla XML.
btw, DAML+OIL is being superceded by the Web Ontology language OWL.
Cheers,
Danny.
[1] <a target=_blank
href="http://www.daml.org/2001/10/html/";>http://www.daml.org/2001/10/html/</a>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a target=_blank
href="http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/";>http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/</a>
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
|
