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

Re: A certain difficulty

From: Arnold deVos <adv@langdale.com.au>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:32:03 +1100
Message-ID: <00c101bf7f94$c3f93600$c52d18cb@army>
To: <xml-dev@xml.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
| .... the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so
| it's hard to know what to do.

In our application we (a) subset the RDF model (leaving out URI pattern,
for example) and (b) employ a simplified (non-striped) syntax.  So I
suppose its not really RDF anymore.

What our application retains is (i) an interpretation of the *stated*
RDF model and (ii) the RDF and RDF schema vocabulary.   BTW, our
experimental syntax uses qnames rather than URI's for references.

I am wondering if the way forward might be to give up on a single,
standard syntax for all RDF serialization.   Instead, create a language
that specifies application-specific mappings between RDF and XML. (I
think there was a hint of this in the Cambridge Communiqué.)

For our part, we have experimented with adapting XSL for translating in
the RDF->XML direction.  A true solution would need to declare a
bi-directional mapping.

This approach concedes that people really want to invent
application-specific XML languages. The idea is to provide a framework
for interoperation that, admittedly, would require the application's RDF
mappings to be available as well as the XML documents.

Regards,

Arnold deVos
Langdale Consultants
adv@langdale.com.au
Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 08:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT