W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

Re: RDF: better syntax effort - who could contribute?

From: Perry A. Caro <caro@Adobe.COM>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:21:27 -0700
Message-ID: <39AD50A7.40B040A4@corp.adobe.com>
To: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Dan,

I'm unclear on the objective.  Is it to analyze and discover ambiguities,
problems, issues, and other concerns about the current RDFMS in order to
help implementors with RDFMS 1.0, or is it to invent a new syntax?  I
strongly feel those two efforts should be separate, though the analysis can
certainly be turned into requirements for the new syntax.

For better or worse, some of us have signed up to support RDFMS 1.0. 
Indeed, if work starts too early on an alternative syntax, support for RDFMS
1.0 might be undermined.  Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, but in
the short run, some of us have a vested interest to protect.

Personally, I'm all for getting some of these RDFMS 1.0 issues resolved,
like the recent aboutEach case.  Both intepretations (invalid vs. distribute
two-way) seem completely valid, reasonable, and defensible to me.  Which
should we implement?

With respect to new syntaxes, I believe XSLT plus ad hoc prototyping is a
viable solution.  Let's prototype some new syntaxes, with the only
requirement being that any new syntax must be transformable to/from RDFMS
1.0 with XSLT.  Compatability and interoperability are preserved, while
leaving a wide open field for experimentation.  Rather than a SAX e-mail
discussion model, I'm suggesting a market driven/popularity model.  Let the
most popular prototype become the de facto standard.

Perry
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2000 14:22:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT