[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>>No seriously, my biggest concern recently is that there seems to be an
>>assumption that those who are interested in RDF are seeking to replace
>>straight XML uses with RDF/XML.
>>
>You know what they say about making assumptions...
>But when you see:
>
>1. RSS 1.0 - Take an existing widely deployed format and refactor it to
>be RDF/XML.
I haven't time for trolls this week.
>2. This article: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html
I can appreciate your point to some extent on this one, though there is
still a huge difference in trying to make two systems more interoperable
(friendly) and replce one with the other.
>3. The attempted refactoring of RDDL to be RDF.
I think the acronym expansions say more than I ever could:
Resource Directory Description Language
Resource Description Framework
>It certainly does 'look' like those who are interested in RDF are
>seeking to replace
>straight XML uses with RDF/XML.
Maybe so. But one of the reasons for that may be that many of the 'straight
XML uses' can be done a lot better in RDF.
Cheers,
Danny.
|
