- From: Walter Underwood <wunder@infoseek.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 08:52:33 -0700
- To: <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 04:51 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Jeffrey E. Sussna wrote: >No. RDF defines alternative syntax for particular abstract models. You may >use whichever syntax you like. The examples you included are equivalent. >This is part of both the flexibility and seeming difficulty at first glance >of RDF. It isn't a "seeming" difficulty, it is a real problem. Two syntaxes are much, much less useful than one. Having two or more ways to say the same thing (zip, jar, and cab for Java) is almost always a bad idea. The reason given for the compressed RDF syntax, "it's smaller", is never a good enough reason. Either use the small one, use the clear one, or make one that is small enough and clear enough. Specs are the wrong place to prevaricate. wunder -- Walter R. Underwood wunder@infoseek.com wunder@best.com (home) http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product) http://www.best.com/~wunder/ 1-408-543-6946
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 12:03:57 UTC