- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:42:18 -0700
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Orri Erling <erling@xs4all.nl>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Richard said ... > I'm prepared to accept that a custom syntax can be more user-friendly than either XML or Turtle. XQuery created a custom syntax and a XML syntax. They created the custom syntax to be user-friendly. I'm not recommending this approach, just giving you all a data point. All the best, Ashok Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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 22:46:02 UTC