W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Syntactic subsetting

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:11:10 -0400
Message-ID: <50913F8E.6040201@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/31/12 10:50 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> RSS 1.0, XMP are best not understood as RDF vocabs, but as the package 
> of some syntax rules with some vocabs. We don't have a good name for 
> such things.
How about structured data formats constrained by schemas where entity 
relationship semantics are implicit and at best coarse-grained.

Conflating RDF with the following is eternally problematic:

1. data model
2. entity relationship semantics
3. data representation formats.

I've never seen the wisdom in passing disambiguation of the above over 
to end-users and developers. It always leads to problems, as history has 
shown repeatedly.

We have similar patterns with SPARQL now, it leaves end-users and 
developers to disambiguate:

1. query language
2. query dispatch and results handling protocol
3. query results formats.


Spec writers should be responsible for disambiguation. Passing that over 
to end-users and developers simply leads to the kind of confusion and 
stunted adoption that we have right now.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 15:11:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT