[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Friday, 25 April 2003 at 13:29, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> Mike Champion wrote:
>> I was not at all persuaded by the "Sam the XML guy and Kerry the RDF
>> guy" fable. This basic approach can work if it is abstracting out the
>> essence of a lot of real-world cases, but I doubt if those exist for
>> this "RDF kicks raw XML's butt" scenario. That gets to the heart of many
>> people's skepticism about RDF -- it *sounds* like a good idea, but one
>> doesn't see very many people actually reaping all those benefits.
> It's a fable, so you can moralize about anything. But even so, why
> is Kerry using XML at all? All that overhead when n-triples would
> interchange just as well. And it seems Sam could do with an
> introduction to XPath :)
Kerry uses XML because there are many existing parsers and writers for
XML. There are few, if any for N-Triples. Also the simple RDF I
advocate in the article is certainly more readable than the equivilent
N-Triple version.
> (RDF isn't entirely suitable for drip feed or
> evoutionary development).
Actually, I believe just the opposite (unless I'm misunderstanding
your comment). Look at FOAF - it's easy to get started, and it's very
easy to drip feed new developments into the spec, or a third-party
module. The only code it affects is on the query side - the parser
always remains the same.
- Ian <iand@internetalchemy.org>
"Minds are like books - they work best when open"
|
