Hi Charles, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > One of the benefits of the XML syntax should be that many things can be done > with RDF without having to have a full RDF framework - there are a lot of XML > tools and development that could be applied to information if a canonical > syntax was available. > > On the other hand, rather than suggesting there is a single caonical > approach, I thin what is useful is a simple mechanism for saying how to turn > given RDF into a particular XML schema for processing the bits that are > understood. So, this is the issue of converting RDF to domain-specific XML (the converter needs to be specific to a given RDF vocabulary for this). All well and good, but I don't think it's exactly related to my problem. :-) Which is: diffing/merging/version controlling arbitrary RDF data. -- The first application for this is that my working group wants to maintain a TODO list/calendar/schedule/note board/etc. as an RDF graph in our CVS repository. We want to be able to mix many different vocabularies there. I think that your approach doesn't apply there... :) - BenjaReceived on Sunday, 29 June 2003 10:13:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:20:09 GMT