[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@h...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:21:54 +0300
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B832@HQ5>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>If I understand TimBL's article, it isn't so much 
>that XML is inconsistent, documents written for human 
>consumption order the presentation of ideas.
>

By consistent, I mean that RDF has only one construct which is the 
triple. XML on the other hand is designed to allow for an infinite 
number of construct and one may (and should) expect any form of 
constructs from it, either expressed directly using the hierarchical 
form of XML or by even more complicated ways such as IDREFs that go 
beyond the hierachical model; it's a syntax not a language or application.

>  To 
>RDF and most machines, that order isn't significant; 
>a clean graph is.
>
Indeed.

>  The human acquires concepts in 
>the order they read them (and BTW, iaw their 
>emotional response to them, and that is often 
>lost in pure logic systems).  So XML as Simon 
>says, has to be able to work for the human where 
>order is important.  RDF has to work for the 
>predicate logic processor.
>
Yes, with no static context. In RDF you can start at any subject to end 
up at any other.

>Again, the win-win seems to be to stripe the 
>XML with RDF constructs.
>
This is a matter of perspective. IMHO, both RDF and XML have problems of 
their own; imagine trying to satisfy both worlds  ;-)

Of course, both technologies have much to learn from eachother. Also, 
they should establish some agreement on the standards they use and their 
interpretation, to allow the information exchange you propose.

Cheers,

Manos


>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) [mailto:mbatsis@h...]
>
>No problem. Well, the main difference is that RDF is consistent while 
>XML is not. 
>
>
>
>  
>

• References:
  • RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• Next by Date: RE: Shortcomings of Predicate Logic? (was RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents )
• Previous by thread: RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• Next by thread: RE: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread