Re: Can RDF thrive in an XML-centric world?

At 2:32 PM +0000 2002-11-04, Graham Klyne wrote:
>IMO, some of the problems were with the original M&S spec, which 
>wasn't sufficiently clear on a number of points.  And some of the 
>problems are a mismatch between RDF's data model (graph) and XML's 
>data model (tree).  And that XML has a number of complicating 
>features that RDF doesn't need.
>
>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.

I don't really see the need for an XML syntax for RDF in the first 
place. My impression of RDF/XML and N3 is that the latter is more 
readable, easier to parse, and more compact.

What advantage would an XML syntax have?

-- 
Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 02:22:16 UTC