[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 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.
Um, this is about the other way around; XML serializations for your RDF
data.
Manos
> 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.
>
|
