Re: Default RDF serialization

Ok. Thanks for clarification.  That's not how I understood it. Anyways, 
so, if that's what David is saying, than I'm on-board with David.

On 8/23/12 12:45 PM, Steve K Speicher wrote:
> Reza,
>
> David's original proposal included the separation of model to
> serialization.  He said:
>> FWIW, if the LD profile is going to recommend one RDF serialization as
>> the default for RDF, I would argue strongly that it should be Turtle
>> instead of RDF/XML, because:
> David is saying for the RDF (model) he would recommend the RDF
> serialization of Turtle  So, IMHO, the separation has been completed.
> Arthur is talking about an alternative data model for some resources that
> have some characteristics where an RDF may not be adequate.  So I see
> Arthur starting a different discussion on an alternative model (and
> supporting serializations) for some use cases he has.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> http://open-services.net
>
> "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/23/2012 03:19:39
> PM:
>
>> From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
>> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
>> Date: 08/23/2012 03:35 PM
>> Subject: Re: Default RDF serialization
>>
>> While I hate to sound like a broken record, I think at this point there
> is
>> enough input from various folks on the thread (Arthur, Steve, Kingsley,
>> David, Ashok, etc.) that the key is to separate model from
> serialization.
>> If that separation is made, then we can address things like performance,
>> specific serialization formats (JSON-LD, etc.), potentially add new
>> serialization formats in the future, enforce consistency between
>> serialization formats via the model, etc.
>>
>> So, IMHO, the first step would be to create a separation between
>> serialization and model.  Otherwise, I don't see us coming to a
> consensus
>> around which serialization format(s) should be selected (unless we
> select
>> all of them in which case we'll have a few years worth of work to do).
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> On 8/23/12 12:13 PM, Arthur Keen wrote:
>> Can the LDP-WG consider performance as one of the criteria for selecting
> a
>> default serialization?  RDF topology can factor into serialization
> performance.
>> For example, it can be very inefficient to serialize dense tabular data
> and
>> time series data (measurements) into these RDF serializations.
>>
>> Is there a way for us to have  triple-oriented serialization for sparse
>> topologies and a tabular serialization for tabular RDF data in the same
> serialization?
>> Arthur
>>
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>   wrote:
>>
>> On 8/23/12 10:19 AM, Steve K Speicher wrote:
>> I strongly agree as well with these points.  The only reason RDF/XML was
>> the only required serialization the member submission is it was the only
>> W3C Recommendation and we attempted to only reference "official"
>> standards.
>> Yes, I understand. Just as (after all these years) I'll never understand
> why
>> the W3C hasn't acted on this most distracting and negative reality.
>>
>> If RDF/XML's status as the sole syntax can't be addressed by putting
> Turtle
>> on the same standing, then we have even more reasons for an overt and
>> explicit loose coupling of RDF and Linked Data. Sadly, we have the
> complete opposite.
>>   Since this appears to be changing within W3C, then this
>> limitation no longer exists.  There was no technical reason, the
>> preference would be Turtle.  There is some consideration in the amount
> of
>> broad support for the serializations and therefore RDF/XML had a little
>> appeal but that is perhaps taking a too narrow view without the desire
> to
>> move things in right direction.
>> RDF/XML provides no benefits to folks that aren't building transformers.
>> Folks like us build data (typically XML sources) transformers
> (cartridges)
>> using RDF/XML, all of that happens behind the scenes and has no real
> impact
>> on end-users and developers bar offering a plethora of formats for
> Linked
>> Data Document content, via content negotiation.
>>
>> I think you may have underestimated the problem you identified in (d) as
>> this is something that I deal with on a fairly regular basis.
>>
>> My preference order for RDF serialization formats would be:
>> 1) Turtle  (minimal requirement)
>> This is for end-users, integrators, and programmers.
>>
>> 2) JSON-LD
>> For JSON programmers.
>> 3) RDF/XML
>> For XML programmers that understand RDF != XML.
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve Speicher
>> IBM Rational Software
>> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
>> http://open-services.net
>>
>> David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote on 08/23/2012 10:08:05 AM:
>>
>> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
>> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
>> Date: 08/23/2012 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Default RDF serialization
>>
>> FWIW, if the LD profile is going to recommend one RDF serialization as
>> the default for RDF, I would argue strongly that it should be Turtle
>> instead of RDF/XML, because:
>>
>>   (a) Turtle is far more human friendly to read;
>>   (b) RDF/XML is not XML Schema friendly;
>>   (c) RDF/XML has XML-based restrictions (such as prohibiting local names
>> that start with a digit) that make certain RDF difficult to represent;
>>   (d) RDF/XML has had a history of misleading developers who are familiar
>> with XML (but not RDF) into thinking that RDF is just a kind of XML.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -- 
>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>> http://dbooth.org/
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>> reflect those of his employer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>