(Toni Uusitalo) writes:
>I'm not saying RDF hasn't got a future since I'm not really
>using/understanding it fully yet but isn't the syntax just too liberal?
People who use RDF primarily generally seem unconcerned about this, I
think because they tend to stay away from syntax and expect programs to
handle it. Syntax variations (even ones like prefixed vs. unprefixed
attributes) aren't a big problem if you aren't concerned about syntax.
People who use XML primarily often find that this is a giant hassle. My
own FOAF-in-XML XSLT work[1] has some strange-looking bits as a result,
and will probably get thornier if and when I get to updating it.
Looking beyond this particular issue, there are a lot of issues that
emerge as you represent graphs (RDF) with trees (XML). A lot of the
presentations at Extreme Markup this year explored ways to work with and
around these complications.
I've made myself something of a nuisance on the subject, I'm afraid, but
I have provoked some interesting response[2], at least.
[1] - http://simonstl.com/projects/foaf-xml/
[2] - http://rdf.burningbird.net/archives/001862.htm
