Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes: > [much wisdom and some questionable assertions about the > substitutability of XML and RDF snipped] > >This is where we disagree. I like it, you don't. Tant mieux. But I >don't see how the fact that some like RDF imposes anything on you. It doesn't, provided two things: * I can safely process documents I receive as XML without having to create RDF graph structures. * I'm not required to add information I regard as noise (URIs, various RDF-namespaced bits, etc.) to my own documents. Unfortunately, I see no guarantee of such things, and indeed, the opposite. Liam Quin's supposed simplification of XML at Extreme last year proposed RDF noise as a good thing, while Roger's proposal (and lots of similar proposals) encourage heavy reliance on RDF graphs to determine meaning. Directed graphs and hierarchical containment are only barely compatible on the best of days. I wish I didn't have to explain that quite so often. I guess I have to conclude that there are certainly problems out there where the incompatibilities aren't so obvious, and that people who work in those fields don't recognize them. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
