RE: taxonomy for schema+related entities

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

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