W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Explaining why we use RDF instead of just XML

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: Trent Shipley <tcshipley@earthlink.net>
cc: <public-esw@w3.org>, RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0306250814440.18191-100000@tux.w3.org>

I don't know that it is. It is different from what I believe people think
they are doing when they create XML namespaces - but I suspect that many
people are like me and actually don't write a schema first up because they
want to play around with it first...   an ideal situation for declaring it as
an RDF vocabulary instead of using an XML schema.


On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Trent Shipley wrote:

>It makes sense as far as it goes.
>Unfortunately, this makes RDF sound like a complex and expensive way to define
>a simple namespace.  How is an RDF application different from an
>On Wednesday 2003-06-25 02:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> RDF IG, (copying SWAD-Europe list)
>[Why use RDF applications?]
>> [[
>* * *
>> So, for any particular application, you could do it in standalone XML. RDF
>> is designed for areas where there is a likely pay-off from overlaps and
>> data merging, ie. the messy world we live in where things aren't so easily
>> parceled up into discrete jobs.
>> Does this make any sense?
>> ]]

Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 08:17:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:43 UTC