[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Well I guess the objection is that XML already has a data model > for keys and > values, so building another one on top is a waste. > > Eg: > > <key name="XXX" value="YYY" /> > > ...might be written: > > <XXX>YYY</XXX> > > The name=... and value=... is perhaps pointless when XML already > has a way of > associating a name with a value. > > It might be compared to implement key/value pairs in Java using a List of > Maps, where each Map has keys called "NAME" and "VALUE"... as > opposed to just > using a single Map. Sounds reasonable. The main reason I was curious is because I've done (more or less) a refactoring of java.util.Properties to use RDF. A possibility was to use a similar king of structure as you describe, with a URI for the name, but as I only need this locally within an app, opted for a literals there, giving the simpler: <rdf:_1 rdf:type='http://ideagraph.org/xmlns/idea/features#Feature' ftrs:name='defaultHtmlTemplate' ftrs:value='default.html' /> I'm still in two minds over this, so was quietly hoping for a 'third way'... Cheers, Danny.
|

Cart



