OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathre

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 4:42 PM +0100 6/9/04, Bill de hÓra wrote:
>>>  Why not? What does the RDF buy you here?
>> Much the same thing a database would, or a program would. Structured 
>> relations and uniform evaluation.
> You're going to need to be more specific. 

If you want something specific, read the RDF Model Theory.

> I don't see that we don't have 
> these things with plain XML.

With plain XML you have parsing and entity expansion. With 
XML+Namespaces you have QName macro processing on top of that.

What XML pixie dust did I miss - self descriptive markup?

> Let's run with that analogy for a minute. If I were claiming Lisp and 
> S-exprs were equivalent, you could show me some Lisp programs that could 
> not be written as S-exprs without also writing an S-expr interpreter. 

No, I would show you the rules for Lisp evaluation. The idea would 
be that'd you appreciate the difference between a syntax tree 
(inscription) and a language (description) and we could get back to 
talking about a lack of interesting applications. Whether anyone 
ever wrote a Lisp program is irrelevant. Please remember that I 
don't disagree with your recent thinking re semantic web hype, just 
that the  position you're currently arguing from has no merit.

> I want to see the RDF programs that could not equally easily be written 
> with plain XML. So far I've only heard it claimed that these exist, but 
> I haven't been able to get anybody to produce one. In fact, the few 
> cases I have looked at deeply turned out to be based on plain XML and 
> not RDF at all! If this stuff is really practical, it shouldn't be that 
> hard to come up with an existence proof.

What I said above - that's irrelevant. You can interpret this as 
evasive - it's not - there's no way I'm contributing further 
confusion to this already deeply confused and wolly-headed permathread.

I suggest making an informed decison - read the RDF or OWL Model 
Theory and decide for yourself whether XML+Namespaces+HTTP cover it 
off - if you come back and say yes, then we'll have something to 
talk about.If you want to talk seperately about Semantic web hype 
the lack of cool Semantic web apps that's fine, but we'll probably 
just end up agreeing. But please stop conflating the Semantic Web 
with RDF and XML with a data model. Expressive power and running 
code are separate issues and conflating them for the sake of 
argument isn't useful.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS