[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:29:40AM -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold 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.
Understood. When I was talking about validition there, I was assuming
that its role was to describe a document that a particular application
could process (extract information from, add new information to,
etc...) So perhaps folks use it in other ways; I don't know.
> Properly designed XML applications ask whether a document
> contains the information need.
Right. But *all* RDF/XML applications can ask *any* RDF/XML document
for the information they need.
> They do not ask whether the document
> contains additional information they don't need or care about.
Right. But that additional information should not impact their ability
to extract the information they do need (modulo mandatory extensions
which RDF needs but doesn't have, though we needn't get into that now).
Vanilla XML, without any further constraints, cannot guarantee that in
many cases. With RDF/XML, you get it for free.
> I
> agree that XML document should be Extensible. I disagree that plain
> vanilla XML documents aren't extensible.
I claim that XML isn't *self-descriptively* extensible, and that RDF/XML
is, making RDF/XML a "better XML" of sorts. FWIW, I gave a presentation
on this subject earlier this year;
http://www.markbaker.ca/Talks/2004-xmlself/Overview.html
Mark.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
|
