- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:26:32 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:55:25AM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > There is one, defined recommendation for serializing RDF graphs - its > RDF/XML [1]. The one point of having a recommendation is so everyone can > implement one thing, and not many. And yet people keep making new ways to serialize RDF graphs. This suggests to me what people have been saying about RDF-XML forever: it has some warts and doesn't fit some (many?) situations. I happen to think -- the layer cake be damned (eaten?) -- that non-XML serializations of RDF are (or can be) a very good thing. I don't want to give those communities *no way* to use DAWG compliantly. Sorry, but "one ring to bind them"-style arguments fall super flat with me. Standardization != restriction of choices to 1 only. > Alternative serialization that encode more information (TriX for the named > graphs, some way of using N3 with formulae) is one thing: promoting > alternative serialises of RDF just negates the value to clients (samll and > large) of having one serialization to deal with. Tell that to Sir TBL! :> Best, Kendall
Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 08:28:37 UTC