W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 1999

Re: Cambridge Communique

From: Arnold deVos <adv@langdale.com.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:56:49 +1100
Message-ID: <002e01bf2cc1$f2934030$ef01a8c0@lakes.com.au>
To: "Renato Iannella" <renato@dstc.edu.au>, "Ken Laskey" <kenneth.j.laskey@saic.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: Renato Iannella <renato@dstc.edu.au>
[...snip...]
>
> I think this highlights the possible confusion between XML and RDF
> Schemas. If I want to describe my Books - should I use XML or RDF
> Schema? Or Both?

I would have said neither.  You might describe books with RDF.  RDF-schema
would only come into play if you wanted to describe your description.

But if the question is: "Do I use RDF or XML to describe books?", then some
of the tradeoffs that occur to me are:

RDF:  syntax already done, only need a book description data model.  Can
base this on Dublin Core.

XML: must invent a book description syntax.

RDF: can distribute book information among many RDF documents, can make
second-order statements.

XML: these features may or may not be allowed of your book description
syntax.

RDF: difficult to use with XSL.  Maybe the syntax is not very attractive.

XML: can use with XSL (and CSS).  Make the syntax as nice as you like.


- Arnold
---
Arnold deVos
Langdale Consultants
adv@langdale.com.au
Received on Thursday, 11 November 1999 23:01:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT