[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:03:08 -0700 (MST)
> Nikita said:
> Sorry, I just had to reply to this:
> On the contrary, one of the greatest advantages of Topic Maps is that they
> do allow conditional inclusions. They do it by means of "scope".
Well, not to start a TM vs RDF holy war, but I hardly think of this as a
reson to prefer TM. You can do this as well in RDF: meta-meta-data is
simply a matter of reified statements. Nice thing about RDF is that you
are free to extend your meta-meta-data as you wish. You don't have to
worry whether the RDF spec hard-codes in the idea of "conditional
include" or whatever modifier you seek.
IMO RDF's power is in its simplicity. In fact, the places where I have a
quarrel with RDF is where it tries to add cruft that I think belongs at a
higher layer. aboutPrefix is one example.
> For example, you can say:
> In the scope of WML aware client use this stylesheet,
> in the scope IE5 use another stylesheet
> and in the scope of NC and IE4 and IE3 use yet third stylesheet.
> I used this approach a couple of months ago and quite successfully!.
> Same thing applies to the values of XSLT parameters.
>
> It is clear and "tripleless" (forgive me, Uche) :-)))
You're forgiven. Especially since I'm not convinced you've found a
weakness in RDF. There are many of those, but I think they're pretty
well-known.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
