Lists Home |
Date Index |
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)) writes:
>>Um, this is about the other way around; XML serializations for your RDF
> Since I have no RDF data, and that didn't appear to be Roger Costello's
> original subject, I'm not sure what you're talking about at all.
Simply replying to your comment:
The subject line of this message, though, suggests pretty strongly that
some folks see semantics as a way out of a syntactic trap. I believe
those folks are fooling themselves at best.
I pointed out one certain syntactical trap RDF avoids via it's
predictable form (in any serialization). Additionally, using RDF-XML VS
vanilla XML works well in many use-cases where you don't know in advance
the domain you will be describing.
Our only disagreement was against your judgement of "some folks" in your
IMHO the major reason behind XML's success is because it easy to attach
semantics on it and then process them with relative ease. From a limited
point of view, RDF is just a specialization of the above recipe for success.
I'll go enjoy my weekend now.