Here's an interesting discussion of whether RDF/XML is readable, compared to a custom-made XML syntax for Atom.
My first reaction to this discussion was that when I looked through the example RDF/XML on that page, it seemed pretty straightforward, assuming you're familiar with namespaces. I like how it's able to combine vocabularies from multiple standards (e.g. Dublin Core, FOAF, and XML itself).
My second reaction was that the debate over whether to use RDF or not is very similar to the static- versus dynamic-typing debate. RDF is the equivalent of static typing, and plain-old-XML is the equivalent of dynamic typing. It all comes down to how much the computer is able to understand about what the code/content is supposed to mean. It's interesting to note that most static-typing afficionados these days prefer type inference to explicit type declarations, but RDF/XML is still at the explicit declaration stage. It might be interesting to follow this train of thought further.
My third reaction was that those who are complaining about how RDF isn't as readable as the plain-old-XML syntax should really wake up and realize that even their simpler format is still XML. XML is not readable, people! Give it up!
Also, Bill de hÓra makes a good point that the syntax used to represent RDF is, in a way, more important than the semantics, when it comes to actually writing software that uses RDF.
Posted on August 15, 2003 11:34 AM
More languages articles