- From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:37:07 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN" <pachampi@caramail.com>
- Cc: "Tom Van Eetvelde" <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, <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>
Hi, Charles said: 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. Didier replies: If this is the case, then why not use a more efficient format than XML? If we are using an XML based framework only for platform portability purpose, it is simply an overkill. Why don't we say that RDF is a frame based notation? What is missing in the framework is "templates" or "ontologies" or more precisely a framework saying what a property mean. Without this, we have "records" or "frames" syntax not semantics ;-) Cheers Didier PH Martin ---------------------------------------------- Email: martind@netfolder.com Conferences: XML Europe (http://www.gca.org) Book: XML Professional (http://www.wrox.com) column: Style Matters (http://www.xml.com) Products: http://www.netfolder.com
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 11:36:59 UTC