RE: [xml-dev] Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: [xml-dev] InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)

["Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>]

> 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
universal.

For a better syntax, maybe you would like TriX.