- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:23 -0500
- To: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> | Why use XML as the syntax for describing triples instead of RDF/XML?
> |
> | (That is, why not just say [admit?] you're proposing a reification
> | vocabulary?)
>
> Hmmm? Their paper proposes a solution to the RDF serialization problem
> - -- RDF/XML is too complex, but any simple solution is too simple because
> for some applications it makes the RDF too difficult to write. That's
> very different from proposing a reification vocabulary...
So it might appear, but I disagree. If you constain yourself to
using only certain forms of RDF/XML serialization, how does it really
differ from XML in appearance?
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 16:55:16 UTC