- From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:41:52 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sandro Hawke wrote: |>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? Which forms do you propose? How about implementing parsers; do you suggest it is ok to restrict parsers to only certain forms of RDF/XML? Currently implementing an RDF parser is not a small undertaking; with TriX it would be a breeze. Also, as a human reading RDF/XML you have to understand all the quirks of the syntax to understand what is going on. - - Benja -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAKr3AUvR5J6wSKPMRAv4FAKC5+7r1nBkRJnv0LSeLL1UEU6WfaACgzdQ0 YjnRHAW91CU5GyiwQIJM7/U= =Ezmd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 18:42:32 UTC