- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:32:13 +0100
- To: "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>At 3:43 PM +0000 2002-11-05, Jon Hanna wrote: >>"Hardly" is enough for a format that co-exists with others. ><snip> >>if I have rules on how the rdf content is formatted in my particular >>document type. > >So you would effectively have multiple variants of RDF/XML that can >be read by a generic XML/RDF parser but require specialized tools to >generate. I can see the usefulness of that. > >What about pure RDF situations, such as storage or transfer between >applications? Is there an advantage to using XML in those? For transfer, SOAP + RDF/XML is effectively an off the shelf solution, so an advantage there. Regarding storage - it would be nice to hear the experiences of anyone using an XML DB like XIndice for RDF. I suspect this would have advantages over RDBMS, though I guess some of the low-level RDF-table mappings would behave like a 'native' RDF DB. Perhaps it's time for an update on Sergey's doc [1] to include the XML and native (/Berkeley?) variants. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/db.html
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 05:43:14 UTC