W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2005

Re: new W3C CDF specs (XHTML +SVG + SMIL +XForms) --- RDF/XML opportunity?

From: <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:13:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <40313.163.117.131.32.1126602812.squirrel@homer.w3.org>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, dean@w3.org

>
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 09:31 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Dave Beckett wrote:
>> >It's an amusing idea for this to obsolete RDF/XML, but incomplete and
>> >non-optimal compared to RDF/XML, for writing some RDF triples (XML
>> >literals for example) and a solution for XHTML2 only.
>>
>> It's disappointing that you describe ideas of this task force, which
>> has an important charter to fulfill, as "amusing".
>
> As you can see from my quote, I was amused at it replacing RDF/XML, not
> the work of the task force.
>
> The charter of the task force as I understood it was to better embed RDF
> in (X)HTML, not to obsolete RDF/XML as a recommended RDF syntax.  The
> results so far seems like it will succeed in allowing much better
> semantic descriptions in HTML markup but that's not the same thing as
> writing a new, complete and recommended RDF transfer syntax to replace
> the existing one.  It's an additional syntax (or syntaxes) not a
> replacement.
>
> Replacement syntaxes would likely have many additional requirements and
> considerations and the charter for that work would have to be very
> carefully written.  I think I've personally experimented with around 3-4
> alternate syntaxes so far with differenet approaches and a couple of
> white papers on it with no final conclusions yet.

I agree. Creating the next general-purpose successor to the RDF/XML syntax
is *not* what we're attempting here. We are fortunate with RDF in that
most tools (APIs, databases, query interfaces etc) don't care which
syntax was used, so developers and users are -to some extent- protected
from changes at the syntax level. And it might be that the world falls in
love with the XHTML2 RDF/A notation, and that some format derrived
from it becomes widely adopted in the marketplace, in preference to
RDF/XML. That's beyond our control. But also, isn't going to happen soon.
Talk of this taskforce seeking to "obsolete" RDF/XML is both unhelpful and
misleading; Bjoern, please stop it! If you prefer the RDF/A notation, feel
free to evangelise its benefits, contribute tools, test cases,
documentation etc., but don't go around casting FUD on the existing
standard. RDF/XML
is stable, well tested, and gets the job done for many applications.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:13:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT