[
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
critics.
>
>>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?
Shelley
|
