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 ]

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> I've read a little RDF & OWL model theory and have failed to see what they buy me above and beyond basing my applications on XML/XPath/XSLT/XSD/XQuery. 

"I've read a little..."

In this case, Elliotte is talking XML+Namespaces+HTTP; if we're want 
ingto throw in XPath/XSD/XSLT/XQuery/RNG plus perhaps a programming 
language to glue it all together, then let's say that.

> RDF people like pretending that the XML family of technologies ends with the XML 1.0 spec when this is far from the truth. 

I don't know who you're talking about in particular - do you? But I 
don't think that way and I'm not arguing that way.

All those things you brought into the discussion are evaluators 
working over XML/Infosets. The reason you're using them is because 
XML is almost pure syntax - it's inert. That's my objection to 
Elliotte's argument. If Elliotte had said "the XML family of 
technologies + HTTP", I wouldn't be arguing with him.

> I also find it interesting that almost every RDF booster talks about how the benefit of RDF is that you can dump all this wonderful semantic data in an RDF store and then query it. So where exactly are these RDF stores or standard RDF query languages? I can dump XML data into a relational database today and query it with SQL. I even could dump it in an XML database [or relational database with an XML datatype] and query it with XQuery or XPath.  

You really don't understand what this thread is about, do you?

> What exactly do RDF technologies buy me over using XML technologies for doing queries over FOAF + RSS 1.0 data, for instance. 

That's a different discussion, which is my point. This argument is 
supposed to be what does RDF get you over XML - the answer to that 
is in the RDF model theory, the XML1.0 spec and the XML Namespaces 
spec. But it's gotten confused because when someone says "XML", you 
have to sound them out to find out whether they really want to say 
"a bunch or expression/evaluation languages working over XML or an 
XML Infoset" or perhaps whether they reall want to say "XML 
technologies" which could include SQL Server for all I know. Thus 
things are being conflated. Then there's the whole "semantic web is 
hype" debate thrown in as well.

Binary XML people; please take note. this is what happens when terms 
are muddied.

> PS: Then there's the fact that RDF doesn't deal that well with mixed content. 

PS: XML doesn't deal well with binary content. So what?


Frankly, I'm finding this thread embarrassing.



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

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