• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: Why RDF is hard
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:56:39 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1022-0C5815D1FA8911D687D90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <r01050400-1022-0C5815D1FA8911D687D90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <3DD8629F.3000600@p...> <012701c28eb8$5769bfb0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> From: "Paul Prescod"
>
> >I'm not convinced (yet?) that the world divides in to these neat
> >categories. Do you see this as tricky:
>
>
> Yes, if my data is in XML.


Simon said that the concepts were difficult so I presented the concepts 
in a simpler syntax to see if he still felt that was true.

> Another approach to the whole thing might be to use XPaths to 
> explicitly mark relations up.
> (These could be defaulted in the DTD.)

I agree that using XPaths is probably a good idea if you're trying to 
deal with the syntax issues rather than the concepts. (but most RDF 
documents don't have DTDs, so that's not where I would put the XPaths)

  Paul Prescod

• References:
  • Re: Why RDF is hard
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Why RDF is hard
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Why RDF is hard
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Next by Date: Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomaticsystems
• Previous by thread: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Next by thread: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread