<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with rdf]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with rdf]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/rdf</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 21:41:02 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/rdf.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[The RDF &amp;amp; SPARQL Working Group invites implementations of two Candidate Recommendation Snapshots.]]></title><description><![CDATA[RE: https://w3c.social/@w3c/116419913539393552@w3c I like the idea of simplicity of RDF, and at the same time, I wonder how it seems to become more and more like Topic Maps ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_map ).I understand why Topic Maps got out of fashion, yet, what does RDF bring new or different to the table?Does anyone know, who can help me here?]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/c60af48a-29c2-4577-b2d9-42c9b4d6788a/the-rdf-amp-sparql-working-group-invites-implementations-of-two-candidate-recommendation-snapshots.</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/c60af48a-29c2-4577-b2d9-42c9b4d6788a/the-rdf-amp-sparql-working-group-invites-implementations-of-two-candidate-recommendation-snapshots.</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[dertseha@dice.camp]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>