- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:49:25 +0100
- To: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
- CC: xml-dev@xml.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com> writes:
>
> > Generally speaking, a complicated design is a bad design. I believe
> > the frustration with RDF comes primarily from the casting of the
> > model into XML syntax(es), not from the writing of the
> > spec.
>
> I disagree -- the XML syntax for RDF has too many annoying variations,
> granted, but the main problem is that the underlying RDF data model is
> much, much more complicated than the spec suggestions.
I would not say that either !
I find the RDF model very simple and uniform (it's all about triples)
which makes its elegance... and for some people its weakness !
In the contrary, the XML syntax is a bit confuse, true.
In my point of view, the problem comes from the recommandation mixing
modeling and syntaxic aspects (I won't mention semantic aspects !)
in a way it's hard to differentiate them without some RDF experience.
Pierre-Antoine
--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 03:48:13 UTC