[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


At 4:42 PM +0100 6/9/04, Bill de hÓra wrote:

>>  Why not? What does the RDF buy you here?
>
>Much the same thing a database would, or a 
>program would. Structured relations and uniform 
>evaluation.

You're going to need to be more specific. I don't 
see that we don't have these things with plain 
XML.


>The problem with your position is that you're 
>doing something along the lines of comparing 
>Lisp to Sexprs and asking, what does Lisp buy 
>me? You're not taking in account the code that 
>needs to impute meaning into the Sexpr in the 
>absence of a Lisp evaluator.

Let's run with that analogy for a minute. If I 
were claiming Lisp and S-exprs were equivalent, 
you could show me some Lisp programs that could 
not be written as S-exprs without also writing an 
S-expr interpreter. I want to see the RDF 
programs that could not equally easily be written 
with plain XML. So far I've only heard it claimed 
that these exist, but I haven't been able to get 
anybody to produce one. In fact, the few cases I 
have looked at deeply turned out to be based on 
plain XML and not RDF at all! If this stuff is 
really practical, it shouldn't be that hard to 
come up with an existence proof.

--

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member