- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:16:09 +0100
- To: Orri Erling <erling@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Hi Orri, From: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl> > For human authorship, it should be neither XML nor RDF since both > are as > good as unwritable by humans. This is a bit of an overstatement. I have seen humans write large amounts of both Turtle and XML. People write books in XML. > RDF with blank nodes for representing trees is an order of magnitude > less human readable than a corresponding XML syntax. <!-- Some tree in XML --> <aaaaa> <bbbbb> <ccccc>value</ccccc> <ddddd>12.5</ddddd> </bbbbb> <eeeee>foo</eeeee> </aaaaa> # Some tree in Turtle <> :aaaaa [ :bbbbb [ :ccccc "value"; :ddddd 12.5; ]; :eeeee "foo"; ]. Honestly, I don't think there is an order-of-magnitude difference. > This is also why we never considered XML or RDF as our own outside > syntax, > even though the internal mapping schema happens to be RDF we would > not dream > of anyone interacting with this except via a SPARQL/SQL hybrid > syntax. I'm prepared to accept that a custom syntax can be more user-friendly than either XML or Turtle. I certainly would be interested in seeing an example to get a better idea. Are you or someone else from the OpenLink crew up for translating Souri's example to an RDF Views-like syntax? Raw files of Souri's XML example and of my Turtle conversion are here: http://github.com/cygri/r2rml/raw/master/examples/emp-dept.xml http://github.com/cygri/r2rml/raw/master/examples/emp-dept.ttl The DB schema is here: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_in_Turtle Best, Richard > > > Regards > > Orri > > > > PS: Harry, this will probably bounce from the list, can you forward > this > there since this sender address has never worked with the list? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdb2rdf-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-rdb2rdf-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 6:20 PM > To: Souri Das > Cc: RDB2RDF WG > Subject: Re: The syntax issue > >> I do see the point for RDF serialization and we should go for it. >> If the >> mapping specification is written by people familiar with RDF (like >> us), >> that will most likely be the preferred syntax. >> However, what if we have a DB person writing the mapping. The >> widespread >> familiarity of and availability of tools for XML could make the >> XML-based syntax more suitable for their use than the RDF syntax. > > I would second Souri here. I think what we should have is a XML > syntax for > DB designers who may "just" be getting into RDF and a RDF/Turtle > syntax > for those who are more familiar with RDF. However, RDF/XML does not > count > as a human or even machine-usable XML syntax for people who are not > familiar with RDF, and while I'm tempted by EricP's suggestion have > having > the best possible XML syntax that is RDF compatible, I'd have to see a > good example to be convinced that the result will not be needlessly > awkward. Therefore, I'd suggest that we use the simplest possible XML > syntax and have a GRDDL (XSLT) transformation to the Turtle/RDF > syntax. > > cheers, > harry > > > >> >> Thanks, >> - Souri. >> >> Juan Sequeda wrote: >>> +1 for RDF serialization >>> >>> RDF people will be happy with this. But what about the DB people? >>> I'm >>> guessing Richard can confirm this with the D2R experience. But >>> Souri, >>> what do you think? A DB person with bare little experience in RDF, >>> would they be comfortable? >>> >>> Is there another serialization that we should think about/ plan for >>> the future? >>> >>> >>> Juan Sequeda >>> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA >>> www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Michael Hausenblas >>> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org <mailto:michael.hausenblas@deri.org>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> But, we should also consider having an XML syntax just b/c of its >>>> popularity and widespread familiarity. >>> >>> Hmm, I think in terms of manual editing Richard has made very >>> good >>> points >>> and I've so far not really seen good arguments for XML beside the >>> above >>> (which is, I think, not the strongest one ;) >>> >>>> However, as Ashok said, if we have more than one syntax we >>> should also >>>> have tools to translate from one syntax to another. >>> >>> That's easy. If we have Turtle as syntax (which I do prefer due >>> to >>> many >>> reasons, most of them already covered by Richard), then I'd claim >>> that any >>> RDF processor out there can immediately turn it into RDF/XML :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michael >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas >>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre >>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway >>> Ireland, Europe >>> Tel. +353 91 495730 >>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ >>> http://sw-app.org/about.html >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Souri Das <Souripriya.Das@oracle.com >>> <mailto:Souripriya.Das@oracle.com>> >>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:01:46 -0400 >>>> To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org >>> <mailto:public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: The syntax issue >>>> Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org >>> <mailto:public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>> >>>> Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:02:36 +0000 >>>> >>>> I have not had time to carefully go thru Richard's >>> justifications for >>>> RDF serialization yet, but I think RDF serialization may be >>> needed. >>>> But, we should also consider having an XML syntax just b/c of its >>>> popularity and widespread familiarity. >>>> However, as Ashok said, if we have more than one syntax we >>> should also >>>> have tools to translate from one syntax to another. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> - Souri. >>>> >>>> ashok malhotra wrote: >>>>> If we are arguing syntax then we are done :-) >>>>> >>>>> If we end up with more than one syntax it would be good if it was >>>>> possible >>>>> to automatically translate from one syntax to the other. >>>>> All the best, Ashok >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Michael Hausenblas wrote: >>>>>>> I propose to proceed based on the concepts of Souri's >>> approach, but >>>>>>> with an RDF serialization instead of XML as the surface syntax. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 22:16:49 UTC