[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:36 PM
Levels of communication make the world go 'round- XML is one level,
ontologies another. Where you don't need semantic consensus, don't
bother. Where you need the agreement (and can get it) do so, and allow
some flexibility to accommodate levels of variance and evolution. This
is the advantage of RDF over CORBA and other strict object models- just
because I use the word "class" and borrow some useful constructs now and
again does not necessarily make me an object zealot. I'm just
acknowledging that the concepts do come in handy for a certain class (no
pun intended :>)) of problems.
We have the benefit of many available tools, built around the same
syntactic structure. Use the ones that do you good and throw out the
rest- until the next problem, when you just might need them.
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: Re: [xml-dev] Syntax + object model
grimlinda@earthlink.net (Linda Grimaldi) writes:
>LLG: True, but a standard syntax by itself doesn't help me make any
>sense of the communication. It's just bytes.
Fair enough, though I find most XML bytes easier to decode than bytes in
other flavors.
Objects are great if everyone agrees on the objects. In my experience,
no one really wants to go that far, and information representation is a
useful middle ground.
|
