Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 04:51 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Jeffrey E. Sussna wrote: >No. RDF defines alternative syntax for particular abstract models. You may >use whichever syntax you like. The examples you included are equivalent. >This is part of both the flexibility and seeming difficulty at first glance >of RDF. It isn't a "seeming" difficulty, it is a real problem. Two syntaxes are much, much less useful than one. Having two or more ways to say the same thing (zip, jar, and cab for Java) is almost always a bad idea. The reason given for the compressed RDF syntax, "it's smaller", is never a good enough reason. Either use the small one, use the clear one, or make one that is small enough and clear enough. Specs are the wrong place to prevaricate. wunder -- Walter R. Underwood wunder@i... wunder@b... (home) http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product) http://www.best.com/~wunder/ 1-408-543-6946 xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
