Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > mbatsis@n... (Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)) writes: > >>XML serializations of RDF based data do avoid one important syntactic >>trap. I mean, because their syntax and extensibility mechanisms are >>semantics-oriented, they are also uniform and thus predictable, >>offering the ability to say anything about anything without having to >>invent a new syntax (XML or other) for every new domain they need to >>describe. > > > For some reason the notion that you should use RDF serializations for > your XML data has never caught on, probably because of the maze of > possibilities in RDF/XML serialization, not to mention that most of us > find plain old XML more than adequate for getting work done. Um, this is about the other way around; XML serializations for your RDF data. Manos > Thanks, but no thanks. You can have your semantic notions and your RDF > - just don't ever claim that they're the right way to do XML unless > you're looking for a fight. If RDF/XML serialization made more sense, > I'd have more patience for it, but RDF and XML seem to come from two > different data-structure planets, and the results are not at all > encouraging. > > RDF is great stuff, and so is XML. It's been highly unfortunate for > both XML and RDF that the two have intertwined, giving us the bastard > children of Namespaces in XML and RDF's XML serialization. >
|
