• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:24:14 +0000
• In-reply-to: <20030526181550.GB3408@c...>
• References: <3ECFD6EE.D9C06AD@m...> <02f401c3223a$6bfdab60$b6f5d3ce@L565> <026e01c32342$6fd8d1c0$4bc8a8c0@A...> <04j4dvost77o8qkrju2rfoq0i4ikrd65up@4...> <20030526181550.GB3408@c...>

John Cowan <cowan@m...> wrote:

| The RDF/XML syntax is designed to minimize the Hamming distance between
| any fairly well designed data-oriented XML and valid RDF.

An example demonstrating this assertion would be enlightening.  Right now,
I'm not sure I understand how "Hamming distance" applies.  

All the more so because I don't find any evidence of "design" in RDF/XML
syntax: on the contrary it's all too obvious that some people were in an
inordinate rush to start tossing taggery into Netploder.  

When it - naturally, later - came to light that DTDs probably wouldn't
"allow" such happy-go-taggy insouciance, the tack to take became, "Well,
this DTD stuff is no damn good."  BTDT.

 http://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9508&L=html-wg&P=R14154

| In other words, it maximizes flexibility; there is *always* more than
| one way to do it.

Yes. and that's why I find the claim of maximum flexibility dubious.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by Date: Scary (Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread