Lists Home |
Date 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
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?