[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Also, have you submitted it to the RDF working group? I would think
> that they would listen to you. If it tests out and works, I would
> think that they would see about including it in the spec with this
> release. I've always found them to be quite responsive, and I
Actually, the WG have come up with a number of alternative XML
serializations themselves, so I am not sure how interested they are in
yet another.
In fact, the current RDF core charter [0] says, right in the first
paragraph, "There is also considerable interest in the exploration of
alternative XML serialization mechanisms for RDF data. The role of the
RDF Core WG is to prepare the way for such work by stabilizing the core
RDF specifications."
The current syntax is incapable of representing all possible RDF models,
and the implicit charter of the working group seems to be to obsolete
the current syntax as quickly as possible. As your e-mail points out,
though, the value of RDF is not necessarily the syntax, but instead is
the model. The RDF-MT [1] details a model which can be used for interop
completely independent of syntax, and IMO the work that went into
thinking through and specifying all of the issues in an abstract way
will help future syntax efforts more than anything else. (I also happen
to think that the XQuery Data Model [2] is a masterpiece of
simplification that has really helped XQuery, so you see where my biases
lie...)
[0] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020429/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/
|
