W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: RDF Model vs Serialization (Language)

From: Hammond, Tony <T.Hammond@nature.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:55:35 -0000
Message-ID: <7F9799651108214B983C918260DAF4EC054286AD@mpl-ldn-exc2.mpl.root-domain.org>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>

Hi Dan:

Thanks for the comments.

> Can you confirm that it's the recent last call draft
> that you were reading? http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-grddl-20070302/

Yes. It was specifically the March 2, "Last Call" draft I commented on.

> (This reply is incomplete; I think I'll send it anyway
> rather than waiting until it's complete. Please do stay
> tuned for a more complete response...)

Will do. (And looking forward to it.)

Meantime I still think I need to respond to a couple of your comments.
If the draft remains as stands then I fear it will do little to help
folks like me get their head around what RDF really is - data model or a
somewhat verbose XML specification for talking about thingy. (The XML
markup is quite straightforward once one takes on board namespaces,
striping, abreviate forms, ... Oh well, maybe it really is a little too
much to ask for.)

> > 1. "There are dialects of XHTML, XML and RDF that are used ..."

For me the red flag here is the juxtaposed "L" and "F" - the first two
refer to "languages", the third to a "framework".

> Is it too much of a stretch to look at RDFS and OWL
> as dialects of RDF?

I would say yes. RDFS and OWL are profiles (or schemas) of RDF (a data
model). Nothing to do with languages per so, although as you point out
there is a "recommended" XML serialization for RDF.

> > 2. "Here's the information contained in the XML fragments 
> above, this 
> > time expressed as RDF:"
> > 
> > Well, no. "expressed as RDF/XML". (This one, I am sure is correct.)
> 
> The RDF/XML given in that example is notation for an RDF 
> graph; so it seems reasonable to say that this information is 
> expressed as RDF, i.e. expressed in the Resource Description 
> Framework.
> 
> "RDF/XML" might also be correct, but it would suggest 
> irrelevant details.

Well, I kind of know that RDF/XML is a "notation for an RDF graph", as
are all serializations or pictorializations of RDF. I also know that it
expresses a *serialization* of the "Resource Description Framework". I
also know that it is *not* in itself RDF, but rather a representation of
an RDF graph.

Don't mean to get too picky, but I would suggest that this kind of
lackadaisical approach is at best confusing to those who are not "in the
know", myself included.

Best close it out here. :)

Cheers,

Tony 

********************************************************************************   
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and 
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan 
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan 
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS   
********************************************************************************
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 13:55:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:42 GMT