[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
> [much wisdom and some questionable assertions about the
> substitutability of XML and RDF snipped]
>
>This is where we disagree. I like it, you don't. Tant mieux. But I
>don't see how the fact that some like RDF imposes anything on you.
It doesn't, provided two things:
* I can safely process documents I receive as XML without having to
create RDF graph structures.
* I'm not required to add information I regard as noise (URIs, various
RDF-namespaced bits, etc.) to my own documents.
Unfortunately, I see no guarantee of such things, and indeed, the
opposite. Liam Quin's supposed simplification of XML at Extreme last
year proposed RDF noise as a good thing, while Roger's proposal (and
lots of similar proposals) encourage heavy reliance on RDF graphs to
determine meaning.
Directed graphs and hierarchical containment are only barely compatible
on the best of days. I wish I didn't have to explain that quite so
often. I guess I have to conclude that there are certainly problems out
there where the incompatibilities aren't so obvious, and that people who
work in those fields don't recognize them.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
