Siggie says:
>> Renato, you don't _have_ to produce triples of things in RDF. What we're
>> aiming for is a neat syntax which will work both ways.
You can work on your "neat syntax" BUT what I am saying is, give
the community a (plain) XML syntax as well.
Dan says:
> And further to Sigge's point, you don't _have_ to use an RDF engine to
> take advantage of the URI-based naming provided by using XML's namespace
> machinery. Yes, using XML namespaces can make our data just that bit more
> bulky and daunting for the newcomer, but for data that wants to be
> unambiguous and useful "in the wild", XML namespaces are worth those few
> extra characters.
I have no problems with XML Namespaces (never said I did?)
Cheers...Renato <http://purl.net/net/renato>
Chief Scientist, IPR Systems Pty Ltd <http://iprsystems.com>
|