[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)]
> Then the point made that RDF is a machine friendly but somewhat
> unnatural way to represent knowledge has some merit.
>
> It sounds as if when we stripe the RDF namespace into the XML,
> we get partial benefits. Better than nothing but not the best
> in strict terms of what an RDF system can deliver.
Yes, this is just how I look at it. Actually, you can represent any xml
document as either a node-centric graph (elements become nodes) or an
arc-centered one (elements become arcs). Even mixed-content documents can
be so represented if you think of imaginary "text" elements that contain the
character data. In the first, the nodes are labeled and the arc labels have
to be inferred; in the second it is the reverse.
Either way the derived graph is incomplete in its KR content (labels are
missing), and this simply reflects the fact that xml is about syntax, not
semantics. The semantics would supply the missing labels.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
