[SCL] Approach to a concrete syntax

[Murray Altheim]

pat hayes wrote:
>> Murray Altheim wrote:
[...]
>> I see absolutely no reason to believe that there's any difference
>> whatsoever in XML vs. RDF/RDFS in avoiding these issues. The same
>> issues for RDF/RDFS exist, and in fact are complicated by the fact
>> that RDF/RDFS brings with it its own set of semantics which are not
>> the same as SCL.
> 
> They are entirely compatible with SCL, although much less complicated 
> since RDFS is a much less complicated language.  Please, guys, don't 
> confuse the airwaves with hasty assertions about semantics.
> 
>> And the fact that after years of trying, many of
>> the fundamental issues in RDF are not yet resolved,
> 
> I don't know what issues you are referring to, but RDFS is pretty 
> tightly specified at this stage and has no fundamental problems that I 
> am aware of.
> 
> Pat

And I'm an XML zealot? Please.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                         http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK                    .

   "We can now hypothesise with some confidence that those apparently
    happy, calm Buddhist souls one regularly comes across in places
    such as Dharamsala, India, really are happy," said Professor Owen
    Flanagan, of Duke University in North Carolina. -- BBC News
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3047291.stm