Matthew Gertner scripsit:
> So like SOAP and REST, or XML and its infoset, RDF and XML are basically
> isomorphic, right? So what is the argument for using RDF instead of plain
> vanilla XML? In particular, wouldn't it make more sense to annotate the XML
> schema (in a separate file, perhaps):
>
> Instance:
>
> <movie>
> <name>Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back</name>
> <director>Kevin Smith</director>
> ...
> </movie>
If you feed this to an RDF processor, and assuming some default
namespace is in effect (say, the same that has the x: prefix),
then it will spew these triples:
_:a rdf:type x:movie
_:a x:name "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"
_:a x:director "Kevin Smith"
So, without meaning to, you have actually written a perfectly
correct RDF document. It asserts that the "movie" element
represents a resource of type x:movie, with an x:name of "Jay and
Silent Bob Strike Back" and an x:director of "Kevin Smith".
--
John Cowan <> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
