[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> > 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).
So does that mean it can't do this? I mean in concrete terms, since we are
discounting extensions it needs..?
>
> > 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;
I'm sorry but telling me that a 'person' has a 'name' (referencing your
presentational url) doesn't really seem to add any great bang for the ugly
syntactical buck(esp. given the exchange rate). telling me what a 'person' is
without my providing the context is the bang for the buck, and despite all the
handwaving that the RDF experts I talk to do, it never seems to get there. (this
is not a dig at you, this is just noting that every RDF expert I have talked to
in real life does a lot of handwaving and thaumaturgical air-drawings when we
get to this point of the conversation)
If all we want is to establish that a particular xml instance has a certain
relationship between its elements and that element names are definitely
meaningful in how they relate to each other it seems like a much simpler
standard than rdf could be proposed to do this.
|
