• To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Subject: Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
• From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@b...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:12:12 +0100
• Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>, leb27@d..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.2.20031001094918.01eece78@n...>
• References: <1272f711275e99.1275e991272f71@d...> <6.0.0.22.2.20030930154224.01dc9c10@n...> <3F7A0C1F.60908@o...> <6.0.0.22.2.20031001094918.01eece78@n...>

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:49:47 -0400
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> wrote:

> At 07:05 PM 9/30/2003, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >Jonathan Robie wrote:
> >
> >>... XML Schema and OWL are not two parts of some integrated system, they 
> >>live in largely separate universes.
> >
> >This article is a nice discussion of the issues: 
> >http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/231/
> 
> I agree. In fact, so far, this is the best thing I have read on the 
> relationship between the XML Web and the Semantic Web.

I read it as somewhat poor; illegal XML examples, uses the wrong RDF
namespace URI, fails to cite the key references of the time on RDF query
or RDF/XML (at that date 2001/2002) and said so when it was presented.
Somewhat slipshod work showing insufficient care with basic XML or RDF.

Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• References:
  • Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schema and ontologies
• Next by Date: RE: Managing Innovation
• Previous by thread: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
• Next by thread: Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread