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

RE: A certain difficulty

From: Sophie MABILAT <Sophie.Mabilat@apitech.fr>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:24:27 +0100
Message-ID: <B1C8643B3AB0D21180250000C0B179CD05B760@jupiter.apitech.fr>
To: "'Rick JELLIFFE'" <ricko@allette.com.au>, xml-dev@xml.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Please, could someone tell me how to unsubscribe this list...

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]
> Envoyé : lundi 28 février 2000 06:42
> À : xml-dev@xml.org
> Cc : www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Objet : Re: A certain difficulty
> 
> 
> Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> >  The concerns centre around how closely RDF is
> > associated with one particular RDF interchange syntax, namely the
> > XML-based format described alongside the RDF model in the 
> Model and Syntax
> > Recommendation. RDFists have generally anticipated multiple 
> syntaxes, or
> > (equivalently?) software architectures that extract RDF 
> data structures
> > from a wide variety of concrete representations. Nobody is 
> considering a
> > rewrite of the model, but there is widespread concern that 
> the current
> > syntax is sub-optimal, and holding back progress with RDF
> > generally.
> 
> The problems with RDF syntax were pointed out before the PR came out.
> 
> I think the RDF people have treated XML as a serialization 
> syntax, where
>     RDF application
>         -> XML (standard, serialization)
>             -> RDF appplication
> 
> Hence, a flat format that doesnt fit in with much else.
> 
> Instead, a more useful model for getting  a critical mass of 
> RDF applications
> would have been:
>     existing non-RDF application
>         -> XML
>             -> RDF application
>                 -> XML
>                     -> non-RDF application
> 
> This model would have lead to an attribute-based syntax (e.g. 
> using ISO
> "attribute forms") to allow RDF annotations on any existing syntax.
> 
> The other problem with RDF as currently specified include:
> 
>     * The  "Formal Grammar" productions are not complete.  The allowed
> attributes rdf:value is not specified anywhere: actually, it 
> is mentioned in
> the RDF Schema spec, but that only give a references to s.2.3 
> in the RDF spec
> which just points to an example.
> 
>     * The RDF spec seems to treat attributes and elements 
> interchangeably:
> sometimes we get rdf:type attribute, sometimes we get 
> rdf:type element. The
> pupported "complete BNF for RDF" only gives the attribute form.
> 
> This slackness comes from not using a DTDs or any other 
> schema framework which
> would have allowed their formal specs to have been tested by 
> a generic tool.
> 
> RDF should be an "architecture" not a "framework".  RDF 
> should have a DTD
> 
> Rick  Jelliffe
> 
> 
> **************************************************************
> *************
> This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
> To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
> List archives are available at 
http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
Received on Monday, 28 February 2000 05:25:23 GMT

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