Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> If I read your reply correctly, this is exactly the way I see it. In that case you must have read it correctly ;-) > Most XML instance documents do not have to use the RDF (and > associated standards) vocabulary. Right, this is a point Uche has laboured long and hard, but I must admit it's only following a recent bit of experimentation (mapping RSS 2.0 to the RDF model [1]) that I'm beginning to feel comfortable with the idea. Basically, the good bit of RDF is the model, so forget RDF/XML and map your data (XML, RDBMS, whatever) directly to the model. If you use a vanilla XML format, then in effect you've made this a domain-specific serialization of RDF. It would lead to pretty bloated > and, a priori, incomprehensible XML if they did. Bloated - probably, incomprehensible - not to a machine. Plus it wouldn't > do much for cross-schema inference. Relationships captured in an > ontology server provide the basis for inference against vanilla > XML instance documents. So the ontology server would understand the XML instance data thanks to a mapping? Whatever, if you do need to communicate with systems from other domains then having your data available in structures defined using RDF (and OWL) makes the production of RDF/XML pretty straightforward. It seems to me this is what RDF is all > about and, when applied appropriately, a lot of the "XML vs RDF" > arguments more or less go away. It all depends on what level you > are working at- instance or ontology. I certainly agree that the value of the model is all too often obscured by the inelegance of the syntax. Cheers, Danny.
|
