xml-dev - Re: A certain difficulty

["Arnold deVos" <adv@langdale.com.au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
| .... the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so
| it's hard to know what to do.

In our application we (a) subset the RDF model (leaving out URI pattern,
for example) and (b) employ a simplified (non-striped) syntax.  So I
suppose its not really RDF anymore.

What our application retains is (i) an interpretation of the *stated*
RDF model and (ii) the RDF and RDF schema vocabulary.   BTW, our
experimental syntax uses qnames rather than URI's for references.

I am wondering if the way forward might be to give up on a single,
standard syntax for all RDF serialization.   Instead, create a language
that specifies application-specific mappings between RDF and XML. (I
think there was a hint of this in the Cambridge Communiqué.)

For our part, we have experimented with adapting XSL for translating in
the RDF->XML direction.  A true solution would need to declare a
bi-directional mapping.

This approach concedes that people really want to invent
application-specific XML languages. The idea is to provide a framework
for interoperation that, admittedly, would require the application's RDF
mappings to be available as well as the XML documents.

Regards,

Arnold deVos
Langdale Consultants
adv@langdale.com.au



***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************