- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:20:47 -0500
- To: Petko Petkov <ppetkov@linuxmail.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 02:42:32AM +0800, Petko Petkov wrote: > I guess it?s a stupid question, but I still do not understand why RDF is better than just XML. Consider this XML document; <Person xmlns="http://example.org/foofoo/"> <name>Mark Smith</name> <age>55</age> </Person> Wouldn't it be nice to know that you could add whatever you wanted after name & age there, and that this would be associated with the Person resource in a consistent manner that wouldn't break already deployed software? With just XML and syntactic schemas, you can't just willy nilly add stuff like that because the schema - and more importantly the software which processes that schema - may not allow it. But did you realize that the XML document above is also a valid RDF/XML document? It is. And when treated as such, instead of as vanilla XML, you get the advantages I mentioned; that "name" and "age" are considered "properties" of a resource of type "Person". RDF/XML - putting the "X" in "XML" Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 19:18:38 UTC