- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
- cc: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Pierre Maraninchi <penguino@caramail.com>, frankh@cs.vu.nl, Pierre Maraninchi <penguino@caramail.com>, dieter.fensel@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
As I understood it, RDF was meant to be read by machines, rather than by people. What the syntax looks like is almost irrelevant in the contet of a user interface that people are expected to use anyway. Charles McCN On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: thanks for the link; very interesting article > Does anyone have comments on this article? I do :) - about nesting (3.3) I think the author are quite unfair : RDF CAN do nesting. Sure it is more verbose than plain XML, and hence less readable - is this what they mean when they write that nesting is not expressible "in a natural way" ? Furthermore, this is a syntactical issue, and I think the whole RDF community agrees on the necessity of a simplified syntax. (Personnaly, I'm even much confident in an attribute-based syntax - in the XLink fashion - allowing to interpret any XML tags as RDF).
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 10:09:06 UTC