Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@q...> writes:
>
> > Generally speaking, a complicated design is a bad design. I believe
> > the frustration with RDF comes primarily from the casting of the
> > model into XML syntax(es), not from the writing of the
> > spec.
>
> I disagree -- the XML syntax for RDF has too many annoying variations,
> granted, but the main problem is that the underlying RDF data model is
> much, much more complicated than the spec suggestions.
I would not say that either !
I find the RDF model very simple and uniform (it's all about triples)
which makes its elegance... and for some people its weakness !
In the contrary, the XML syntax is a bit confuse, true.
In my point of view, the problem comes from the recommandation mixing
modeling and syntaxic aspects (I won't mention semantic aspects !)
in a way it's hard to differentiate them without some RDF experience.
Pierre-Antoine
--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
|
