Ad nauseum

Mark responds:

I see the disconnect. I'm referring to any/all XML document(s). No fair saying that some specific kinds of XML documents are partially understandable, because clearly you can design one to be, and SOAP, as an envelope, is one as you correctly point out.

No fair?! Why not? Let's see... what other types of XML vocabularies can be similarly classified.

• XHTML
• XML Schema
• WSDL
• XSL
• RDF
• SVG
• P3P
• ...

He continues:

So, consider this XML document;

<iwoejaf xmlns="http://example.org/oijerwer">
  <ijrwer>inm4jvxc</ijrwer>
</iwoejaf>

That's the kind of document I'm talking about. Wouldn't you say that understanding that document is all or nothing? You either recognize the namespace or you don't, right?

And you either recognize this:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>

or you don't. In all cases, you need to read the specs.

As for RDF serialized as XML, if there were a canonical form, it might just be usable (although we'd still be needing an inference engine... gee, can I cram one of those in a cell phone yet?). Until such time, we're left with an interesting model and a lousy way (or, should I say ways) of serializing it in XML.

RDF is not a panacea. Until it gets grounded in practicality, it isn't likely to gain a foothold beyond academia.

Business doesn't run on partial understanding. Neither does a nuclear reactor. I bet you'd be quite disappointed if you made a deposit to your bank account and the application that processes deposits only partially understood the transaction and simply didn't understand (and hence ignored) the amount element!