[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Walter Underwood <wunder@infoseek.com>
- To: <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 08:52:33 -0700
At 04:51 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Jeffrey E. Sussna wrote:
>No. RDF defines alternative syntax for particular abstract models. You may
>use whichever syntax you like. The examples you included are equivalent.
>This is part of both the flexibility and seeming difficulty at first glance
>of RDF.
It isn't a "seeming" difficulty, it is a real problem. Two syntaxes
are much, much less useful than one. Having two or more ways to say
the same thing (zip, jar, and cab for Java) is almost always a bad
idea. The reason given for the compressed RDF syntax, "it's smaller",
is never a good enough reason. Either use the small one, use the clear
one, or make one that is small enough and clear enough. Specs are
the wrong place to prevaricate.
wunder
--
Walter R. Underwood
wunder@infoseek.com
wunder@best.com (home)
http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product)
http://www.best.com/~wunder/
1-408-543-6946
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
