Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

[Some of this thread got cross-posted to RDF-Logic.  Could we please 
stop cross-posting and only post on this topic here?]

On 11/27/2018 4:34 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> You missed the part about global identifiers. XML does not have them.
> RDF has them built in: URIs.

That's because I was not claiming that XML can be a replacement for RDF. 
  I was debunking the myth that XML isn't for graphs but only for trees.

(Anyway, you could create a profile for an XML language in which 
ID/IDREFS have to be global identifiers.  And an identifier could be 
linked to one or more useful IRIs by an attribute on its element.  Not 
that it would automatically be equivalent to RDF just by having global 

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:21 AM Thomas Passin <> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2018 10:54 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> XML and JSON are all about tree structures. RDF defines the more
>>> flexible data structure of graphs
>> It probably doesn't matter for this discussion, but I've seen statements
>> like this too often.  XML actually can represent graphs perfectly well.
>> One way is by using ID/IDREFs, and there are many other ways.  Just
>> because an XML document reads serially from start to finish doesn't mean
>> it has to represent a tree instead of a graph (leaving aside the matter
>> that a a tree is a particular kind of graph structure!).  In fact,
>> that's obvious because the XML syntax for RDF interchange describes RDF
>> graphs.
>> XML elements (the ones without ID values, anyway) can be considered to
>> be typed anonymous nodes.  You could regard them as bnodes that have a
>> type relation but not an ID.
>> TomP

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 15:36:27 UTC