Re: XML serialization of SPARQL

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:11:17 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> [snip]
> > That's in essence the argument from WSDL...web services at the W3C 
> >(and elsewhere largely) are *xml* web services. You look like a dork 
> >selling something else; unprofessional. Plus, you *are* being a bit of 
> >a dork, since the overhead of the retooling you require makes 
> >accepting our somewhat out of mainstream technology that much more 
> >expensive for many people.
> [snip]
> 
> I realized afterwards that this passage can look *way* more personal, 
> snarky, and insulting than I intended for it to be.  I was more trying 
> to convey my own experience of being in a situation where the technical 
> choices I was explaining and implicitly advocating were deemed dead on 
> arrival and realizing that those rejectors had pretty good reasons for 
> reacting that way. I apologize for the infelicitous expression.

No problem, I'm not easily offended :)

My mail was mostly just whimisical post-cofee, pre-work rambling. The
real point was that any XML serialisation should be close to the parse
grammar. I can see the use of an XML serialisation, but validation is not
a significat gain IMHO.

- Steve