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

Re: Syntactic subsetting

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:16:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpoyBaE6HyAhQ1T6zSsoe5ft9yxgCFRw6MS=9yGSSQEuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 31 Oct 2012 08:11, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

It didn't hurt Ajax, HTML5 and Web 2.0, whatever they are.

Dan

> --
>
> 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 15:17:26 GMT

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