[topicmapmail] Fragmented XTM for web metadata, and some ontology?

[Kal Ahmed]

On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 05:59, Robert Barta wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 05:36:39PM +0100, Kal Ahmed wrote:
> > > So I think that we shoul NOT depricate resourceData.  Instead, we should
> > > strengthen it so it can specify the type of the literal data it holds.
> > > 
> > 
> > Absolutely. Though I go one step further. I don't want a reinvention of
> > data typing. I just want to be able to include XML from namespaces other
> > than the XTM one inside the resourceData element. Then I can use
> > MyFavouriteSchemaLanguage to do not only datatyping but to express other
> > constraints on the content. Then all I want after that is the ability in
> > TMCL to restrict occurrences of particular types to having resourceData
> > content from particular namespaces. Then I would be happy.
> 
> Kal,
> 
> Duly noted. But then I would assume that someone might also want to
> check constraints on the data INSIDE the XML fragment as well.
> 
> This cannot/should not be done within TMCL but would have to be handed
> off to the XML constraint language of the author's choice.
> 
Yes, absolutely. IMHO that separation of concerns is an advantage with
this proposal over the proposal to include datatypes as part of SAM/XTM.

Cheers,

Kal