W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Explaining why we use RDF instead of just XML

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:49:31 +0200
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "Bohnenberger, Keith" <KBohnenberger@mcdonaldbradley.com>
Message-Id: <E6C633B4-A756-11D7-9D48-003065CDBE5C@gmuer.ch>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think everything that can be represented with xml can be represented 
with rdf but not the other way round. Or is there a way in plain xml to 
express a circular relation like "john dislikes peter and peter 
dislikes john"?

reto

Mercoledý, 25 Giu 2003, alle 15:13 Europe/Zurich, Bohnenberger, Keith 
ha scritto:

>
> I am relatively new to RDF but Im not sure I understand the comparison.
> Isnt RDF all about the graph. The subject, predicate and object and 
> what
> you can do with them.  OWL is a standard for describing specific
> subject, predicates and objects for ontology representation and
> inference.  XML just happens to be one syntax for representing RDF but
> XML does not seem to be the important part of RDF (not withstanding the
> common serialization, transporting, parsing etc).  The logical
> capabilities of RDF do not seem to have anything to do with XML.  Once
> again, I am relatively new to RDF but this is what I gathered from a
> bunch of reading.  Am I missing something?
>
> Keith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Stuart [mailto:Ian.Stuart@ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:04 AM
> To: RDF Interest list
> Subject: Re: Explaining why we use RDF instead of just XML
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 12:53, Trent Shipley wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, this makes RDF sound like a complex and expensive way
> to define
>> a simple namespace.  How is an RDF application different from an
>> XML-Namespace?
> My understanding is that, yes, it is a complex and expensive way to
> implement namespaced XML. The benefit is that there is a common
> agreement of the basic structure of the XML data, defined and agreed by
> consensus.
>
> The benefit of this is that the XML document should be largely
> understandable by all those who can interpret RDF-structured data.
>
> The only grey area is when one starts to encode a new type of data, not
> previously covered by another RDF subset.
>
> As has been mentioned elsewhere (some web page I read a week or so 
> ago),
> RDF, et al, swell the size of the resultant data object by a 
> significant
> amount. The trade-off is between making the XML data-object and the
> interoperability (another big word that sounds more important that it
> really is :-) of the data
> -- 
> --==++
> Ian Stuart, Perl Laghu. EDINA, Edinburgh University.
>
> Information is not knowledge
> Knowledge is not wisdom
> Wisdom is not truth
> Truth is not beauty
> Beauty is not love
> Love is not music
>               -- Mary.
>
>  Works web site:    http://edina.ac.uk/
>  Personal web site: http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE++hdgD1pReGFYfq4RAoUsAKCPSGXwxEbPpGQ//bW/ArhOnFu+IgCfZjBw
43Uh2etvePg0XeQOPvL+lGk=
=AT2u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 17:49:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT