- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:00:30 +0100
- To: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <38B3D9EE.6A6E40BD@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > In fact if > you re-read all the hype and 'promises' of XML, you'll find that XML on > it's own cannot actually implement them - RDF can. Yes XML can ! The proof is, you can express RDF in XML !... The debate "XML vs. RDF" is, IMHO, a false one : RDF has a model (and a syntax, but that's not the important point) when XML has (and actually IS) a syntax and only a syntax. You can use XML to express many things, including RDF. I guess you could even use XLink to express RDF properties... > As it happens I think RDF is nowhere near as difficult as people think. > And it is incredibly significant. On that point we agree, and I think the difficulty comes from the RDF recommandation mixing syntactical aspects with more fundamental ones (which gave matter to the "XML vs. RDF" debate!). I wrote a small tutorial for my colleagues, and I thought it could be interesting for the RDF community (and for me to have your opinions :). Since it was for internal use, I not only presented RDF but also some personal points of view about how it could be enhanced or used. Any comment are (very) welcome PA --- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Attachments
- application/x-gzip attachment: tutorial.rdf.ps.gz
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 07:59:08 UTC