At 04:51 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Jeffrey E. Sussna wrote: >No. RDF defines alternative syntax for particular abstract models. You may >use whichever syntax you like. The examples you included are equivalent. >This is part of both the flexibility and seeming difficulty at first glance >of RDF. It isn't a "seeming" difficulty, it is a real problem. Two syntaxes are much, much less useful than one. Having two or more ways to say the same thing (zip, jar, and cab for Java) is almost always a bad idea. The reason given for the compressed RDF syntax, "it's smaller", is never a good enough reason. Either use the small one, use the clear one, or make one that is small enough and clear enough. Specs are the wrong place to prevaricate. wunder -- Walter R. Underwood wunder@infoseek.com wunder@best.com (home) http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product) http://www.best.com/~wunder/ 1-408-543-6946Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 12:03:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:06 GMT