[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web pe
> > > They do not ask whether the document > > contains additional information they don't need or care about. > > Right. But that additional information should not impact their ability > to extract the information they do need (modulo mandatory extensions > which RDF needs but doesn't have, though we needn't get into that now). So does that mean it can't do this? I mean in concrete terms, since we are discounting extensions it needs..? > > > I > > agree that XML document should be Extensible. I disagree that plain > > vanilla XML documents aren't extensible. > > I claim that XML isn't *self-descriptively* extensible, and that RDF/XML > is, making RDF/XML a "better XML" of sorts. FWIW, I gave a presentation > on this subject earlier this year; I'm sorry but telling me that a 'person' has a 'name' (referencing your presentational url) doesn't really seem to add any great bang for the ugly syntactical buck(esp. given the exchange rate). telling me what a 'person' is without my providing the context is the bang for the buck, and despite all the handwaving that the RDF experts I talk to do, it never seems to get there. (this is not a dig at you, this is just noting that every RDF expert I have talked to in real life does a lot of handwaving and thaumaturgical air-drawings when we get to this point of the conversation) If all we want is to establish that a particular xml instance has a certain relationship between its elements and that element names are definitely meaningful in how they relate to each other it seems like a much simpler standard than rdf could be proposed to do this.
|
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
|