• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: DAML +OIL versus XML
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 19 May 2003 20:41:45 +0300
• In-reply-to: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPMEALCNAA.danny666@v...>
• References: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPMEALCNAA.danny666@v...>
• Sender: larsga@l...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

* Danny Ayers
|
| [on RDF]
| 
| I certainly agree that the value of the model is all too often
| obscured by the inelegance of the syntax.

I think that is in part because people keep insisting that RDF is XML,
which it is not. As long as you think of RDF as being XML what you see
is the syntax, and not the model. If people could only realize that
the two have very little to do with one another things would be a lot
easier. 

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• References:
  • RE: RE: DAML +OIL versus XML
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why Standards?
• Next by Date: RE: key constraint question
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: DAML +OIL versus XML
• Next by thread: Re: Re: DAML +OIL versus XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread