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

RE: Can RDF thrive in an XML-centric world?

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:11:32 +0100
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Bob MacGregor" <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFMEBDIFAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

>> Yes, RDF/XML is inexcusably bad and should go.
>> The rest of RDF is seriously held back because of the XML serialization.
>> Jeremy
>I fully agree.

It would be interesting to hear from the WG why the current RDF/XML hasn't
already "gone". There are pretty good alternatives from TimBL [1] and Sergey
Melnick [2] dating from 1999, and there have been plenty more suggested
since then.

A total replacement syntax would throw out a lot of babies, but instead
perhaps a separate parallel (WG?) thread could be spawned to work out a new
syntax that had less surprises for XMLers, avoiding the current ugliness but
could round trip through XSLT to existing RDF/XML. Current RDF/XML wouldn't
have to be deprecated. Most of the good work already done on the syntax
should carry across, and backwards/sideways compatibility would only be one
clearly-defined process away, which could be implemented in most existing
systems with a couple of lines of code. The trad XML folks are no longer
scared and everyone lives happily ever after?


[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax
[2] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/syntax.html
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 06:26:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC