Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 2:04 PM -0700 6/10/04, Joshua Allen wrote:
>Hold on; if you publish in RDF, then you *are* publishing in
Yes, we know. However, we're trying to decide if bothering with RDF
triples as compared to any other reasaonable and obvious XML format
buys us anything.
>I thought the question was, "when modeling data (presumably for
>interchange), should you model it using XML data model or RDF data
There is no XML data model, certainly not one equivalent to the RDF
data model. There is only XML syntax.
>Getting RDF *syntax* out of the picture, just think of modeling *any*
>data in XML.
>Is it ever a best practice to model your XML data in such a way that:
>a) it represents a collection of real-world "items" with "properties"
>b) all nodes which represent property names are clearly distinguished
>(no implicit property names, conventions are clear, etc.) from actual
>items or property values
>c) optionally, all "items" have IDs which can be referenced in property
>IOW, even if you do not use RDF, do you ever find that it's a best
>practice to model your data in the way that RDF would?
>I think the answer is "sometimes". I suspect that Elliotte has built
>real-world schemas that are practically equivalent data model to RDF. I
>wouldn't challenge him to defend *why* he did it, because sometimes it
>just makes sense. Sometimes it doesn't. I don't see a controversy
I'm not sure I ever have written such a schema. I thyink I tend to
make what you're calling properties element names rather than a
complete separate element or node, but maybe I'm not quite following
you. However, even if I have written such schemas, my data model that
I use to generate the document may not be the data model that others
use to process the document. The data model is local. Different data
models can be applied to the same document. Unlike RDF's canonical
triples/subject-predicate-object model there is no one data model for
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)