[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray scripsit:
> An insight distilled from this opinion would be useful. That is, *why* is
> a DTD unlikely? Or, what is necessarily possible in RDF/XML that the DTD
> formalism can't capture? (Which might raise questions such as, why need
> RDF/XML have its particular XML representation if, say, another equally
> expressive one were possible to describe with a DTD?)
The RDF/XML syntax is designed to minimize the Hamming distance between
any fairly well designed data-oriented XML and valid RDF.
In other words, it maximizes flexibility; there is *always* more than
one way to do it.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.
|
