Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Friday, 25 April 2003 at 13:29, Bill de hÓra wrote: > Mike Champion wrote: >> I was not at all persuaded by the "Sam the XML guy and Kerry the RDF >> guy" fable. This basic approach can work if it is abstracting out the >> essence of a lot of real-world cases, but I doubt if those exist for >> this "RDF kicks raw XML's butt" scenario. That gets to the heart of many >> people's skepticism about RDF -- it *sounds* like a good idea, but one >> doesn't see very many people actually reaping all those benefits. > It's a fable, so you can moralize about anything. But even so, why > is Kerry using XML at all? All that overhead when n-triples would > interchange just as well. And it seems Sam could do with an > introduction to XPath :) Kerry uses XML because there are many existing parsers and writers for XML. There are few, if any for N-Triples. Also the simple RDF I advocate in the article is certainly more readable than the equivilent N-Triple version. > (RDF isn't entirely suitable for drip feed or > evoutionary development). Actually, I believe just the opposite (unless I'm misunderstanding your comment). Look at FOAF - it's easy to get started, and it's very easy to drip feed new developments into the spec, or a third-party module. The only code it affects is on the query side - the parser always remains the same. - Ian <iand@i...> "Minds are like books - they work best when open"
|
