Does RDF Solve the Problem of Semantic Interoperability Among Browsers?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Tony Hammond writes on XML.COM:

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/07/23/rssone.html

"The use of XML Namespaces can help to resolve element naming conflicts in
XML documents but cannot of itself resolve any semantic interpretation that
may be placed upon the use of a particular schema. Inserting arbitrary
namespaced elements into an RSS document does not necessarily help either a
human or a machine understand the purpose of the element or the meaning of
its value. Further, there may or may not be a schema specification located
under the XML Namespace URI, but even if there were, it might not help the
human or machine to interpret the context within which an RSS element is
found. By adopting a public data model such as RDF all these ambiguities
vanish. In the RDF data model the context supplies the meaning."

How does RDF context supply meaning beyond what the schema provides?
Does this really solve the problems of creating interoperable language 
aggregates (eg, does it enable one to put HTML inside SVG or vice versa 
and guarantee it will always work regardless of the browser used)?

Keep in mind, I don't accept interoperation as simply moving data 
from one application to another.  That's data portability and 
XML namespaces do get one that.  Semantic interoperabilty, IMO, 
means same results regardless of the browser used to an acceptable 
degree along dimensions such as behavioral and rendering fidelity.

len