[Geowanking] geo microformat BOF session at Where 2.0
scitronpousty at esri.com
Tue Jul 5 21:41:44 PDT 2005
This whole argument reminds me of Web Services (ala SOAP, UDDI...) versus REST. In certain situations you need all the functionallity that Web Services has to offer but it's hard to beat the simplicity of REST. I understand the benefit of RDF but it is certainly not as simple to grok as plain old xml.
Just an observation, besides, with RDF how will they fit those transmitters on a web page. Wait a second did I miss a letter there or something?
From: Mattias Konradsson [mailto:mattias at globalvillage.nu]
Sent: Tue 7/5/2005 7:57 PM
To: geowanking at lists.burri.to
Subject: RE: [Geowanking] geo microformat BOF session at Where 2.0
> The problem with XML formats is that you have to write a new
> parser for every single one.
> XML abstracts out the syntax. RDF abstracts out the grammar.
> You still can understand parts of the document even if you
> don't recognize some specific words.
I'd say you have about the same problem with rdf as with xml formats. If you
don't have a known vocabulary/schema than you don't know exactly how to
parse information. Rdf isn't more understandable per se than a xml
structure, quite the opposite sometimes.
I don't want to bash rdf but really it's hard to come up with any concrete
advantages of rdf vs xml. If anyone can come up with a concrete example
where's thats the case then please go ahead. IMO it's more about semantics
than actual usability.
The problems don't lie in what format you use but how well you model your
data for maximum flexibility and a minimum of ambiguity, and that they arent
too many different standards within the same area.
"GlobalVillage - world domination or major procrastination"
Geowanking mailing list
Geowanking at lists.burri.to
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 5350 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Geowanking