RE: [humanmarkup-comment] [RDFCore] Items (was: HumanMarkup: Pave dWith Good Intentions)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:kurt@kurtcagle.net]

I think that there is a place for both of the technologies,

That has been my assessment as well.  My emphasis is that 
the concepts and synthesis of concepts is the most important 
product.  I expect the technologies to fit these.

>RDF is critical for creating relational mappings and associations within an
>XML framework. RDF essentially defines the concept of "about", and a
>significant portion of what will go on in the domain of HumanML essentially
>involves correlative structures.

Relational associations can also be done with topic maps.   

>Schema provides a syntactical definition for structures. Schema essentially
>provides the grammar that defines valid syntaxes, and is responsible for
>cohesiveness.

Yes.

>Transforms (XSLT) come into play as transformative structures, and can be
>seen as a way of integrating various schema structures across an RDF
>relationship.

Yes or other relationship definition although I am not sure exactly how an 
RDF can specify the XSLT to use.

>In other words, I see RDF as essentially defining two resources (schemas)
>and a "verb" that ties the two resources together; the XSLT (or DOM, though
>I think XSLT is better in this regard) then defines the actions of the
verb.

XSLT is better for the verb realization.  Until we define the services a 
HumanML system should provide, we don't have as much clarity there.

len