david at megginson.com
Thu Nov 25 13:31:55 GMT 1999
Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> writes:
> But we haven't got around to marking it up.
Do you mean XML or RDF in particular? I was referring to XML, which
is coming along very well -- see
is that we stop worrying about the low-level lexical details of markup
and start worrying about higher-level issues like object exchange
(RDF, XMI, or what-have-you).
> The heavily minimized version of your example is easy to read in the
> traditional XML sense but it is very hard to puzzle out the RDF
> graph for it. The uniminized one is great for machine to machine but
> not at all appropriate for anything humans would work with. Why do
> we have to choose?
Because that's the nature of information exchange. Any
fully-normalized information is going to be hard to read, because
you're going to have to jump around following the links; any
fully-denormalized information is going to be hard to process.
I don't know if RDF should have tried to deal with both situations in
the same spec (probably not), but switching low-level syntax from tags
to parentheses is hardly going to affect the fundamental problem.
Machines and people eat information differently.
All the best,
David Megginson david at megginson.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev