- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 02:23:17 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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