On 2/3/2014 12:55 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
> XMl has nothing to do with semantics.
>
> XML has the ability to make data portable and can be used to transfer
> ontological or semantic models, or fragments thereof, between applications. (01)
I agree with both of those points. (02)
JSON notation (or the very similar LISP notation) could have been
adopted by the W3C for exactly the same purposes, but without the bloat
or excessive coding. LISP, for example, has a built-in parser that
requires only two operators: CAR and CDR. (AKA head and tail.) (03)
The Google researchers understood those issues very well. That's why
they adopted JSON. And the W3C has finally blessed JSON as an option. (04)
In 1999, Guha wanted to use LISP notation for RDF. He was also
working at Netscape then, which had designed JSON. If the W3C had
let him do what he wanted to do, they would have saved us from the
bloat, excessive coding, and unreadable garbage. (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)
|