[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>Manos Batsis writes:
>
>
>>RDF has a simple but strict model, meaning the way it's XML is
>>de-serialized into triples to form the RDF graph. That's what makes
>>RDF processors able of dealing with any RDF. Vanilla XML on the other
>>hand is unpredictable in structure (as well as the actual meaning of
>>that structure) and levels of depth - from the RDF point of view, XML
>>is ugly, low level and meaningless.
>>
>>
>
>Heh. From my markup-centric perspective, RDF is ugly, high-level, and
>excessively charged with meaning encoded so abstractly as to be nearly
>cryptographic. Oh, and it's painfully constraining since it can't
>figure out how to deal with mixed content, a common human construct.
>
>Just couldn't resist...
>
No problem. Well, the main difference is that RDF is consistent while
XML is not. Most people have much more complaints about RDF than you ,
Simon, have. This includes datatyping, a formal way of assosiating RDF
documents with their RDF Schemas (without hacks like custom properties
or namespaces), the common missuse of URLs and others.
Personally, I just use a proper subset of RDF that allows me more than
RDF does as it stands today. Of course, I just use RDF serialization in
XML as a syntax to layer my own semantics and custom graph upon the
original, but if this becomes more solid, one will be able to use RDF or
just plain XML processors to interpret it.
Cheers,
Manos
|
