[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
mbatsis@netsmart.gr (Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)) writes:
>XML serializations of RDF based data do avoid one important syntactic
>trap. I mean, because their syntax and extensibility mechanisms are
>semantics-oriented, they are also uniform and thus predictable,
>offering the ability to say anything about anything without having to
>invent a new syntax (XML or other) for every new domain they need to
>describe.
For some reason the notion that you should use RDF serializations for
your XML data has never caught on, probably because of the maze of
possibilities in RDF/XML serialization, not to mention that most of us
find plain old XML more than adequate for getting work done.
Thanks, but no thanks. You can have your semantic notions and your RDF
- just don't ever claim that they're the right way to do XML unless
you're looking for a fight. If RDF/XML serialization made more sense,
I'd have more patience for it, but RDF and XML seem to come from two
different data-structure planets, and the results are not at all
encouraging.
RDF is great stuff, and so is XML. It's been highly unfortunate for
both XML and RDF that the two have intertwined, giving us the bastard
children of Namespaces in XML and RDF's XML serialization.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
