Re: missing bit of RDF for XML people

Frank Manola wrote:
> To illustrate how "obvious" these relationships sometimes are, you can 
> run some arbitrary XML through the W3C's RDF validator 
> Obvious to *people* maybe.

Unfair, the RSS validator is a machine, just a special one.

XML is less semantically explicit, but not less semantically structured.

"obvious" should read "well specified in a given context".

The semweb is tring to reduce the non-transferable context and have 
machines be able to teach eachother that context, so that more 
processing can be done and can be ported along with the data, but 
without security concerns.

The XML model (all the way up to the XML protocol stacks) doesn't have 
this notion.

It's Lisp vs. Fortran all over again :-)

but the fact that they use the same syntax to encode things just makes 
it sooo hard for people to see how far apart the two models really are.

Here follows the usual rant on how harmful RDF/XML was for RDF, yadda 
yadda... ;-)


Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 15:36:43 UTC