W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:09:09 +0000
Message-ID: <b3be92a01001180609x7579a6c6j3a40cf137a6d6215@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>>> * an RDF/XML profile (as above) designed for maximum compatibility
>>> with XPath/XSLT/XQuery
>>
>> That would be nice. I often thing that RDF/XML is not a terribly good way
>> to encode RDF in XML.
>
> TriX was meant to address that need. I do not believe its take up has been
> significant.
> For several years now my view has been that RDF/XML is an obviously flawed
> system, with no compelling alternative.
>

How about the use of Atom? I think RDF may need a bit of a
spring-cleaning - and lots of people are using things like Google's
gData, Microsoft's oData, and  Activity Streams in the Social Web to
ship data on the Web, not RDF. Each of these RDF alternatives is based
on Atom. So maybe a Atom-based syntax for RDF would be useful? People
seem to think it's a bit simpler than RDF/XML.

> Jeremy
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 14:09:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:33 GMT