[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 9:16 PM -0400 6/3/04, Mark Baker wrote:
>I agree, it's not the triples themselves which are key. I believe that
>what's key is a data model which presents information in discrete
>"packets" so that I can, for example, add a new packet without impacting
>the ability of deployed software to extract other packets. Triples do
>that, but so can other models. So, in response to Elliotte, this is
>why vanilla XML (+Namespaces+URIs) isn't sufficient.
I was with you until the last sentence. I see no reason why
plain-vanilla XML+Namespaces can't do this. You make the claim on
http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/2003/10/09/#2003-10-rdf-and-xml
that " additional properties can be added without impacting the
meaning of the former interpretation, i.e. potentially breaking some
application somewhere. An XML app can't assume this; it might be
breaking its validity against some schema someplace." Simply put, I
don't care if adding additional information breaks some schema
someplace. Properly designed XML applications ask whether a document
contains the information need. They do not ask whether the document
contains additional information they don't need or care about. I
agree that XML document should be Extensible. I disagree that plain
vanilla XML documents aren't extensible. Validity is not required.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
