[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:52:02PM -0800, Ken North wrote:
> As for RDF being unreadable or incomprehensible, Jonathan Borden's
> always said you can do a presentation about RDF using one slide.
Could be. On the other hand, I've seen people--smart developers who have
little trouble grasping, for example, XSLT, struggle to get their heads
around RDF. But I have a hypothesis as to why this is so.
As
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> There's a serious divide between the two approaches. I'm very impressed
> by some of the people who do regularly cross between XML and RDF and
> that they can keep their heads straight as they do so.
Yes, and I think the RDF model is not at all hard to understand:
ignoring the standard terminology, it's all about objects with named
properties. What could be simpler? But the XML syntax seems to obscure
the simplicity of the model. I believe the source of the confusion is
that people expect the structure of an XML-RDF document to reflect the
structure of the underlying graph ... but very often it doesn't.
--
Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through
mgushee@havenrock.com its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way,
Horses bear soldiers through
its streets.
--Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)
|
