[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 8:06 PM -0400 6/9/04, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>> I want to see the RDF programs that could not equally easily be
>>written with plain XML.
>
>"RDF program" I'm not sure how to interpret this. RDF is a *format*
>for interpreting triples as a graph (very basically).
Bad choice of words on my part. I simply meant I want to see an
application in which having the data in RDF format made the
application development noticeably easier than writing the same
application with the data presented in plain vanilla XML with a
namespaces cherry on top would have been.
For example, if I were explaining why XML is superior to binary
formats, I might say "Here's a Microsoft Word document in a binary
format. Here's the same docuemnt in WordprocessingML. Now do a
frequency count of the words in the document. Which format do you
prefer?" Both are possible. Both formats contain identical
information; but one format makes the task much easier than the other.
I'd like to see the use cases where starting from an RDF triple store
makes life easier than starting from the identical information in
more traditional XML. Use of all easily available free tools and
languages is allowed (Python, Java, XSLT, XQuery, Owl, etc.) Reliance
on expensive proprietary systems (e.g. Tamino) is not because as I
saw on sign somewhere recently, "If we can't afford the solution,
it's not a solution."
--
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
|
