- From: Tim Serong <tims@ixla.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:07:59 +1000
- To: "'McBride, Brian'" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
McBride, Brian wrote: > > Whilst you could do that, it doesn't feel like a very clean > solution. What advantage do you get out of using > RDF in this way? The advantage is that I don't have to keep track of unique IDs when manipulating data in this format. But I agree, it doesn't feel very clean. > Could XSLT help here at all? Would it be possible to start > with a file in the format you prefer and have the fragment > ID's inserted automatically by an application or XSLT transform. > Then you would have more useful RDF, could use standard RDF > tools and your data could be processed by other systems. Good idea. I think I was trying to tie together too many things in one place. It is very easy for me to write an XML DTD that neatly defines the data I am manipulating, and to write software to process it - but nobody outside my organisation would know what my data means, which is why I started looking at RDF. I *like* the idea of search engines and other agents being able to understand my data. I believe that implementing an RDF parser is currently overkill for my particular application (tranferring data between two relational databases), but I ultimately want the data to be useful to other systems, which is why I was trying to inline RDF with it. Regards, Tim Serong Senior Software Developer, Publishing IXLA Limited Email: tims@ixla.com.au Web: http://www.ixla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 20:15:03 UTC