- From: David Allsopp <d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 15:09:36 +0000
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
> I think RDF/XML has a bad press, to which it doesn't fully live up (down?).
>
> Which is not to claim that RDF/XML is without problems, but in many cases I
> think it can do a pretty good job of application-to-application
> interchange, often with acceptable human readability.
...
> I think it's fine that there are other, more humanly accessible, formats
> for RDF (e.g. thinking of Notation 3 and graphical presentations), but I
> don't think that designing another XML format for RDF would be a productive
> use of energy.
AFAIK, it's still the case that one can create RDF graphs for which
there is no XML-RDF representation; If so, that seems a pretty fatal
flaw in a syntax.
[Issue rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris: The RDF XML syntax cannot
represent all possible Property URI's.
Issue rdfms-syntax-incomplete: The RDF/XML syntax can't represent an an
arbritary graph structure.]
Regards,
David.
--
/d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u
m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B
A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div
setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 10:09:09 UTC