RE: I guess it's a stupid questions...

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