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.comReceived on Thursday, 13 April 2000 11:36:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:39 GMT