[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: taxonomy for schema+related entities
Ron Daniel writes: | You may want to add RDF schemas to the list of | schemas. Interesting political ground. I've reorganized the DTDs and will be emitting a new version Fairly Soon. The XML and SGML entity semantics now are in xsgml-entity-list.ent, which looks like this: xml-dtd | sgml-dtd | xml-schema | xdr-schema | sox-schema | sgml-element | xml-element | sgml-attribute | xml-attribute | sgml-enumerated-attribute-set | xml-enumerated-attribute-set | sgml-enumerated-attribute-value | xml-enumerated-attribute-value | sgml-parameter-entity | xml-parameter-entity | character-entity-set These are supposed to be entities specified in standards (8879) and specs (XML Schema will be one of the specs) that are "fundamental". In this list, xdr-schema and sox-schema are temporary accompaniments to xml-schema, and should go away once XML Schema is cooked. And there are other items from the SGML Property Set and XML Info Set (if that's cooked enough) that should be added. Of course, a true fundamentalist would regard XML Schema as only an application of XML Language and therefor inappropriate here. On that plane, it's no more distinguished than RDF schemas. However, I suspect people think of RDF schemas as more of an application than XML Schema. Do they? should we add a list of application types, of which RDF would be one? what other application types are there to consider? or should we just add rdf-schema to the list above? regards, Terry Terry Allen Advanced Technology Group Commerce One, Inc. Walnut Creek, Calif. tallen[at]sonic.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC