Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>RDF and XML are a poor fit in general, but I don't think it's remotely
>possible to claim that RDF-think is as accessible as XML-think to most
>people.
>
Agreed, but RDF is much more easy to read and visualize than most think,
which is a bad thing. RDF is not bound to any of it's formal or unformal
forms, including the XML serialization and that makes RDFers have a
different view for their data than XMLers have for their own. XML is
(about) markup, RDF is not.
Regards,
Manos
