W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2004

Re: I guess it?s a stupid questions?

From: Petko Petkov <ppetkov@linuxmail.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03:42:37 +0800
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20041112194237.9AA2B398198@ws5-1.us4.outblaze.com>

Yes, I agree with that. My general idea is to integrate RDF in such a way that will make a webpage less redundant. Let me explain. For example you have a resource on the web and it is a pure XHTML document with a lot of li, a, h1 tags. This document is meaningless for computers. The only thing that a computer software can understand is the type of the tags but not the information inside. 

Most of the web developers will write the page as it is. They will add RSS and bind the whole thing with RDF. It’s great but it makes the documents redundant. First of all I write the document in such a way that people can understand me, and than I need to describe the same thing that I already did. 

How is it possible to write, let say, XHTML and bind the semantics inside the tags so I it is still accessible to me as a web developer and it is still computer readable. RDF doesn’t provide the solution for this, as far as I know.

For example: Let’s write a document about the dolphins. In my document I list several types of dolphins. That’s great. Now I need to switch to RDF from XML to specify the difference about the dolphins again.


I want to apologies if this example or question sound boring or stupid, but I think that describing a data, that is already described doubles and complicates the work. Moreover, I cannot relay on the killer app that will handle this complexity since this inclines a total symbiosis with it.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Petko Petkov <ppetkov@linuxmail.org>
Subject: Re: I guess it?s a stupid questions?
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:20:47 -0500

> On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 02:42:32AM +0800, Petko Petkov wrote:
> > I guess it?s a stupid question, but I still do not understand why RDF is better than just XML.
> Consider this XML document;
> <Person xmlns="http://example.org/foofoo/">
>   <name>Mark Smith</name>
>   <age>55</age>
> </Person>
> Wouldn't it be nice to know that you could add whatever you wanted
> after name & age there, and that this would be associated with the
> Person resource in a consistent manner that wouldn't break already
> deployed software?  With just XML and syntactic schemas, you can't
> just willy nilly add stuff like that because the schema - and more
> importantly the software which processes that schema - may not allow
> it.
> But did you realize that the XML document above is also a valid RDF/XML
> document?  It is.  And when treated as such, instead of as vanilla XML,
> you get the advantages I mentioned; that "name" and "age" are considered
> "properties" of a resource of type "Person".
> RDF/XML - putting the "X" in "XML"
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org 
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.

Powered by Outblaze
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 19:47:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:54 UTC