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

Re: generic XML to RDF triple mapping

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:13:48 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000911150526.00bae680@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:47 PM 9/11/00 +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
>I tried to characterise this with reference to the Cambridge Communique
>in saturday's msg:
> 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0091.html

Yes... I noticed that after drafting my comment.

>         [...]
>         The thing that we need to be most careful about is talk of turning
>         'any arbitrary XML into RDF', as if there were a sole, simple 
> answer to
>         this challenge. ('Colloquial XML' is one phrase I've heard used btw).
>         I can think of lots of RDF-ifications of any chunk of 'colloquial'
>         XML. In
>         particular, two broad categories: one where we reflect infoset
>         constructs directly into RDF, another where we reflect the
>         XML-encoded "application data structures" into RDF without preserving
>         details of that encoding.
>         [...]
>
>Does some such distinction help at all? Both are good things to aim for,
>but confusing them endangers both efforts...

I think it is good that we recognize the distinction.

Personally, I tend to think of the former as maybe of limited value -- 
describing and reasoning about the structure of XML documents.  I see the 
latter as an interesting topic.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 14:50:37 GMT

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