- From: Victor Lindesay <victor@schemaweb.info>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:44:49 -0000
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate. Stephano wrote: > If you don't care about semantic interoperability of > relationships, keep > using XML and be happy. There is nothing wrong in that, but > the rest of > the world won't be able to understand your data, even if properly > namespaced because the "meaning" of the nesting of the tags > will have to > be 'guessed' by the XML reader. Unless of course the 'world' understands the XML schema. RSS (version whatever) or Atom for example. > Now interpret the above as RDF/XML, it says: > - there is a resource "urn:blah:0" > - this resource has type "urn:blah:1" > - this resource has a relationship urn:blah:2 with a > literal value of > "blah" > > same syntax, different models. With RDF, the readers of your data can > guess less and know more. Only if the 'world' knows what urn:blah:2 'means'. Surely the main advantage of RDF over XML is that RDF software can consume, merge and process arbitrary RDF data in a generic fashion because all the data is expressed as triples.
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 22:52:41 UTC