Jonathan Borden () wrote:
> Well RDF isn't human readable and it does describe resources, and
> splinter specs such as RDFS and OWL allow you to specify vocabularies
> in ways that actual software can process. Of course it's probably more
> complicated that what you want, but so is the English language... and
> just like the English language it is being used ... actually if we use
> this analogy, RDF is more like ... say Belgian, but nonetheless it does
> have a population :-)
Sounds good, using OWL might be the way to go. So...what's the
ontology of a resource that supports XML data? That one will
take some figuring.
Thanks,
Eric
