• To: "Joe Gregorio" <joe@b...>,"Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@b...>
• Subject: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:53:25 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3DD7E840.2010206@b...>

>>No seriously, my biggest concern recently is that there seems to be an
>>assumption that those who are interested in RDF are seeking to replace
>>straight XML uses with RDF/XML.
>>
>You know what they say about making assumptions...
>But when you see:
>
>1. RSS 1.0 - Take an existing widely deployed format and refactor it to
>be RDF/XML.

I haven't time for trolls this week.

>2. This article:   http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html

I can appreciate your point to some extent on this one, though there is
still a huge difference in trying to make two systems more interoperable
(friendly) and replce one with the other.

>3. The attempted refactoring of RDDL to be RDF.

I think the acronym expansions say more than I ever could:

Resource Directory Description Language
Resource Description Framework

>It certainly does 'look' like those who are interested in RDF are
>seeking to replace
>straight XML uses with RDF/XML.

Maybe so. But one of the reasons for that may be that many of the 'straight
XML uses' can be done a lot better in RDF.

Cheers,
Danny.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
    • From: Joe Gregorio <joe@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• Next by Date: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
• Next by thread: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread