Re: Moving rdf:Seq and friends to RDF/XML (was: Re: Minutes of RDF-WG F2F, Day 2)

I fully agree.

Ivan


On Oct 31, 2012, at 13:04 , Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:

> It's a bit odd to make it a feature of RDF/XML when you *can*
> serialize it in any concrete syntax.
> I'm affraid that this would further confuse people trying to
> understand the difference between the concrete syntax and the data
> model...
> 
>  pa
> 
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:24, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> "Millions (maybe billions) of files around the world using RDF?
>>> Awesome, let's declare the markup they use to be broken! That'll teach
>>> them to follow W3C recommendations..."
>> 
>> How about changing the documentation of rdf:Seq and friends in the following way:
>> 
>> * They are actually syntactic features of RDF/XML, like rdf:Description or rdf:about
>> 
>> * Unlike rdf:Description and rdf:about, they are expressed as triples in the graph that one gets from parsing the RDF/XML document
>> 
>> For example, here's the current definition of rdf:Alt:
>> 
>> [[
>> The rdf:Alt class is the class of RDF 'Alternative' containers. It is a subclass of rdfs:Container. Whilst formally it is no different from an rdf:Seqor an rdf:Bag, the rdf:Alt class is used conventionally to indicate to a human reader that typical processing will be to select one of the members of the container. The first member of the container, i.e. the value of the rdf:_1 property, is the default choice.
>> ]]
>> 
>> This could be changed to something like this:
>> 
>> [[
>> The rdf:Alt class is the class of RDF/XML 'Alternative" elements. It is a subclass of rdfs:Container. It has no formally defined meaning in RDF Semantics. However, it is used conventionally in the RDF/XML syntax to indicate to a human reader that typical processing will be to select one of the members of the container. The first member of the container, i.e. the value of the rdf:_1 property, is the default choice. The use of this class in new deployments that do not specifically target the RDF/XML syntax is discouraged.
>> ]]
>> 
>> Clearly, some subtlety in the phrasing is required. The gist would be that nothing changes for existing technologies like XMP or RSS 1.0 that are tightly bound to RDF/XML, but it sends a clear signal that one shouldn't use these guys in “modern” RDF.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 06:05:00 UTC