[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mo
uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes: >> * I can safely process documents I receive as XML without having to >> create RDF graph structures. > >I think I understand this. Some people insist on imposing RDF >structures on regular XML documents, such that you have to process >them using RDF models in order to do anything useful with them. Yep, that'd be it. >I agree this is a problem and a very bad one. The reason I support >RSS 1.0 is that even though it insists on RDF/XML, which I dislike >probably as much as you do, its authors actually did make an effort to >design it so that it you could ignore the RDF bits and just extract >what you want using, say, simple XPaths. The designers of RSS 1.0 did a very nice job as far as keeping it processable by XML tools. I think the same can probably be said of the results produced by people who read this article (though it goes the other direction): http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html That doesn't mean I enjoy the RDF noise, but more about that later. >In general, I think that systems that push RDF-think into XML are >B.A.D. (Tim Bray meaning, again). I'm hoping that's broken-as-designed, in which case I'm happy to agree. >> * I'm not required to add information I regard as noise (URIs, >> various RDF-namespaced bits, etc.) to my own documents. > >I think this is where we'd disagree over, say RSS 1.0. I see such as >syntactic inconveniences (well, except for namespaces which are a >semantic inconvenience for any given definition of "semantic" :-) ). > >But this is a natural area where folks will disagree. I'm glad we've >clarified this. Yep. I can tolerate some degree of this, though RSS 1.0 is as far as I'm willing to go, and even that pushes me a little too far for comfort. >> 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, > >Well, you know there's no chance in hell of that becoming the true >future shape of XML any more than YAML, so I wouldn't worry too much >about this one. I hope you're right. >> while Roger's proposal (and >> lots of similar proposals) encourage heavy reliance on RDF graphs to >> determine meaning. > >But by my understanding, he is proposing an out-of-band usage, so that >if you prefer not to use this, you can just use the XML as is. I'm >not seeing where the ontology is required for basic XML processing. > >Maybe I misread Roger's proposal? Or maybe I read it more critically than you did. It really sounds to me like the proposal makes processing depend on the ontology, in ways that sound a bit like architectural forms run through a RDF mediator. >> Directed graphs and hierarchical containment are only barely >> compatible on the best of days. > >I disagree strongly here. First of all, there are any number of >algorithms for inetrechange between the two. Those algorithms are capable of expressing one form in the other, but it hardly optimizes for readability in the other media. To leap to a different field, imagine getting only TV and radio transcripts in your paper rather than stories written for the paper. >Secondly, even XML supports directed graphs (ID/IDREF). This has come under a fair amount of fire lately, and I think quite rightly. >A tree is mathematically nothing but a degenerate form of a directed >graph (and more specifically a directed acyclic graph). And don't >trip, "degenerate" is purely a mathematical usage :-) Sure. But a lot of us are much happier with the degenerate form, and have no fondness for the directed graphs. Perhaps that makes us undirected hedonists, but as I just renewed monasticxml.com, I should probably pursue a different line of rhetoric. >> 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. > >Maybe I need to understand more clearly what you mean by >incompatibilities. You've already listed plenty of them. I think the basic problem is that what you regard as an inconvenience, I regard as a culture clash between two sets of structures that don't get along well. I'd have thought RDF/XML would be a simple open and shut case for what a lousy mixture these things produce, but apparently RDF users adapt to that mire over time, or simply avoid looking at it directly. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|