W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: XML vs. RDF vs. N-Triples vs. N3 vs. CSV saga is up again (was: Re: Toss NTriples -- RDF Reification is all we need )

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:07:50 +0300
To: ext Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, <areggiori@webweaving.org>
CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <dirkx@covalent.net>, Zavisa Bjelogrlic <netzac@virgilio.it>
Message-ID: <B9264486.164BF%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2002-06-07 1:45, "ext Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> your XML syntax for triples has been proposed on this list at least
> other
> I looked at all of those links, and did not see the proposal.
>> moment in the near future :) I do not want to worry anymore about what
>> will happen tomorrow, whether a new syntax will be proposed by some
> clever
> That is why I like Patrick's suggestion.  It isn't really a "new
> syntax", but just a "canonical RDF".  If you have a parser that parses
> RDF, it will parse this syntax.  So you can go ahead and continue doing
> things the complicated way, or you can use canonical RDF when you want
> to test graph isomorphism, write a bare-bones parser, and so on.

Exactly. It would be understood that it is a specialized serialization
for the express purpose of testing the behavior of parsers, not as
a replacement of the full RDF/XML, but since it *is* RDF/XML, there
is no need for (a) users to learn yet-another-syntax and (b) parser
implementors to support yet-another-syntax. Especially when that
syntax is not XML.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 04:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:41 UTC