On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 15:35, Sigfrid Lundberg wrote:
> What is the difference between a an abstract representation of an
> aggregation of properties used to form a "record" and XML or RDF
The difference is that RDF schema cannot (by design) handle collections
of properties as a "record"; there is simply no such concept in RDF
schema. It only talks about the semantics of individual classes and
properties, and their relations, not about aggregating them.
OWL has minimum cardinality contraints for properties, but this still
does not mean that every property needs to reside in the same RDF
> I don't think that beast would be a RDF schema, since we don't wont
> that animal to redefine the semantics of the members of the
> aggregation. It could be written in RDF though. It could assert that
> the a given aggregation has semantics X1, X2, ... Xn as members. You
> I suppose you could specify the same thing using an XML schema or a
> DTD, though.
Yes, and there are several RDF-based (experimental) languages for
specifying such things.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose