[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>If I understand TimBL's article, it isn't so much
>that XML is inconsistent, documents written for human
>consumption order the presentation of ideas.
>
By consistent, I mean that RDF has only one construct which is the
triple. XML on the other hand is designed to allow for an infinite
number of construct and one may (and should) expect any form of
constructs from it, either expressed directly using the hierarchical
form of XML or by even more complicated ways such as IDREFs that go
beyond the hierachical model; it's a syntax not a language or application.
> To
>RDF and most machines, that order isn't significant;
>a clean graph is.
>
Indeed.
> The human acquires concepts in
>the order they read them (and BTW, iaw their
>emotional response to them, and that is often
>lost in pure logic systems). So XML as Simon
>says, has to be able to work for the human where
>order is important. RDF has to work for the
>predicate logic processor.
>
Yes, with no static context. In RDF you can start at any subject to end
up at any other.
>Again, the win-win seems to be to stripe the
>XML with RDF constructs.
>
This is a matter of perspective. IMHO, both RDF and XML have problems of
their own; imagine trying to satisfy both worlds ;-)
Of course, both technologies have much to learn from eachother. Also,
they should establish some agreement on the standards they use and their
interpretation, to allow the information exchange you propose.
Cheers,
Manos
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) [mailto:mbatsis@humanmarkup.org]
>
>No problem. Well, the main difference is that RDF is consistent while
>XML is not.
>
>
>
>
>
|
