OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new releases

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Shelley Powers wrote:

> If people wanted simple and to more easily view the tuples, there was
> NTriples all along. You can't get more basic and more simplified than
> Ntriples. 


NTriples is a syntax defined by RDF Core for writing test cases last 
year. It has not always been around, as you claim. And RDF core does 
not recommend the use of NTriples over RDF/XML as an interchange.

Now, why would a working group see fit to define a entirely new 
syntax for tests cases when it alrady had a syntax?

> Yeah, but who is to say that his new approach would have been better? We can
> work and work and work a spec until we're blue in the face and not find a
> perfect solution. People learn to work the situation, or they learn to
> automate it -- i.e. autoconf, automake, and libtool.

Or a) throw it out and invent a better tool as the Java world is 
doing with Ant, b) use langauges that don't require a make.

Indeed, it took about twenty years for the UNIX community to figure 
out how to use make properly. I'm pretty sure the syntax wasn't 
helping any.

> Tim, we need the WG to finish. We have been waiting over a year for them to
> finish. We need something stable that we can work with. We do NOT need to
> start all over again. I would pack it in at that point. I really would.

Gosh. I though RDF was supposed to get us out this morass of 
ill-defined, ill-advised, non-interoperable technology. Much of 
which is the way it is becuase it had to be done yesterday, or the 
body politic in question ran out of steam. I don't expect RDF to add 
to that. RDF is nearly five years old at this point- another year 
won't hurt any.

> Have to disagree with you on this. You don't just throw everything out, say,
> oh so sorry and start again. Not really. If the group formalizes the one
> form of RDF/XML, based on considerable comments, testing, and discussion --
> then can't we accept that and work alternatives? Or use Ntriples? Or use
> XSLT to transform? Or APIs? Isn't that a better approach then to continously
> scrap where we are to start all over...again?

Scrap what exactly? RDF/XML is a serialization for RDF - it's not 
RDF. Since syntax matters, all most people are asking for is a 
better syntax. It's not like anyone here is asking for sweeping 
changes in the RDF Model (with the exception perhaps of how literals 
are to be treated).

Bill de hÓra



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS