[
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?
*shrug*
Frankly, I'm finding this thread embarrassing.
cheers
Bill
|
