W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2000

RE: The semantic web

From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:37:07 -0400
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN" <pachampi@caramail.com>
Cc: "Tom Van Eetvelde" <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Pierre Maraninchi" <penguino@caramail.com>, <frankh@cs.vu.nl>, "Pierre Maraninchi" <penguino@caramail.com>, <dieter.fensel@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Message-ID: <NBBBJPGDLPIHJGEHAKBAKEKIFDAA.martind@netfolder.com>
Hi,

Charles said:
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.

Didier replies:
If this is the case, then why not use a more efficient format than XML? If
we are using an XML based framework only for platform portability purpose,
it is simply an overkill.

Why don't we say that RDF is a frame based notation? What is missing in the
framework is "templates" or "ontologies" or more precisely a framework
saying what a property mean. Without this, we have "records" or "frames"
syntax not semantics ;-)

Cheers
Didier PH Martin
----------------------------------------------
Email: martind@netfolder.com
Conferences: XML Europe (http://www.gca.org)
Book: XML Professional (http://www.wrox.com)
column: Style Matters (http://www.xml.com)
Products: http://www.netfolder.com
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 11:36:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT