> The basic idea of RDF that seems useful is naming things with
> standard URIs. However, I simply don't see how the RDF syntax
Actually, I agree with you. The official syntax is lame, but the
fundamental concept of naming things with URIs is the key. The value of
RDF is the data model; not the serialization syntax.
> improves on XML+namespaces for that, and XML+namespaces is so
> much nicer a syntax than RDF.
Well, the big difference is that RDF is a "triples" data model, while
XML is hierarchy. Setting aside the issues of how you *serialize* the
triples, it's inevitable that "triples" will win in these "semantic"
scenarios. OSAF Chandler is based on "triples", as is Longhorn's WinFS.
Both are essentially "personal semantic web stores". Triples+URIs is
how you bootstrap the "personal semantic web store" and make it
universal.
For a better syntax, maybe you would like TriX.
