• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 04:26:07 +0000
• In-reply-to: <20030527114013.GB31209@c...>
• References: <3ECFD6EE.D9C06AD@m...> <02f401c3223a$6bfdab60$b6f5d3ce@L565> <026e01c32342$6fd8d1c0$4bc8a8c0@A...> <04j4dvost77o8qkrju2rfoq0i4ikrd65up@4...> <20030526181550.GB3408@c...> <6gm4dv83qak5f9tdkjs0ujp2pi9o3j5df5@4...> <20030527114013.GB31209@c...>

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

| I simply mean that it is intended to be fairly easy to evolve one's 
| document type to make it RDF-compatible.

By namespacing everything that comes to hand in document instances?
Thanks, but no thanks. 

| If RDF/XML had been designed simply as a syntax for capturing the RDF
| knowledge model, like XTM, it would be a good deal more rigid and 
| "meta" than it is.  But that wasn't the idea.

More's the pity.

• 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...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Testability and Schema validity
• Next by Date: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by thread: Only "an" infoset? (Was: Syntax + object model)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread