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 ]

>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?

Sorry -- N3 if you prefer.

>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.

make file characteristics was never the issue as much as libraries 
and idiosyncracies and compatibility issues across Unix platforms. 
However, this is off-topic and not worth pursuing.

>>h. 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.

Another year won't help Bill. And another year probably won't result 
in a specification that will please all the critics. Or half the 

>>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).

Agree -- RDF is a model while RDF/XML is just a serialization. I 
don't believe all of the issues are related to just the syntax, 
though most in this list would, naturally.

I'm curious, Bill -- do you have a better syntax in mind? Exactly 
what aspects of RDF/XML do you dislike? Can you provide details, or 
links to writings that provide details of your main objections?



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

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