Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 8:57 AM -0700 6/11/04, Joshua Allen wrote:
>Well, RDF "data model" is only slightly more constrained than XML, and
>applications are welcome to use internal data models rather than that
>implied by XML or RDF. By XML "data model", I mean:
>a) you have a tree of nodes, and all nodes must have a name
>b) a node may contain other nodes, literal values, or nothing
>c) node values may reference other nodes
If that model works for you, great. It is rarely if ever the model I
use. In my preferred model there are many unnamed nodes (mostly text
nodes) and nodes rarely reference other nodes explicitly. Nodes have
values rather than containing values.
But the data model is local. There's no reason my model has to be the
same as your model. We exchange concrete documents, not models.
However, I don't believe there is any such thing as a common XML data
model, nor does there need to be one. In RDF, the triples do form a
data model, and that makes RDF qualitatively different than XML.
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)