As I understood it, RDF was meant to be read by machines, rather than by people. What the syntax looks like is almost irrelevant in the contet of a user interface that people are expected to use anyway. Charles McCN On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: thanks for the link; very interesting article > Does anyone have comments on this article? I do :) - about nesting (3.3) I think the author are quite unfair : RDF CAN do nesting. Sure it is more verbose than plain XML, and hence less readable - is this what they mean when they write that nesting is not expressible "in a natural way" ? Furthermore, this is a syntactical issue, and I think the whole RDF community agrees on the necessity of a simplified syntax. (Personnaly, I'm even much confident in an attribute-based syntax - in the XLink fashion - allowing to interpret any XML tags as RDF).Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 10:09:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:39 GMT