Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <email@example.com>,"Michael Champion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: [xml-dev] InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
- From: "Joshua Allen" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:26:20 -0700
- Cc: "XML Developers List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcRJdIsi1lwXUE17TCGKH1uZ2PTl0wAM6Smw
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: [xml-dev] InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
> The basic idea of RDF that seems useful is naming things with
> standard URIs. However, I simply don't see how the RDF syntax
Actually, I agree with you. The official syntax is lame, but the
fundamental concept of naming things with URIs is the key. The value of
RDF is the data model; not the serialization syntax.
> improves on XML+namespaces for that, and XML+namespaces is so
> much nicer a syntax than RDF.
Well, the big difference is that RDF is a "triples" data model, while
XML is hierarchy. Setting aside the issues of how you *serialize* the
triples, it's inevitable that "triples" will win in these "semantic"
scenarios. OSAF Chandler is based on "triples", as is Longhorn's WinFS.
Both are essentially "personal semantic web stores". Triples+URIs is
how you bootstrap the "personal semantic web store" and make it
For a better syntax, maybe you would like TriX.