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

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

From: Elin K. Jacob <ejacob@indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:13:26 -0500
Message-Id: <a05200a00b9ec22dbe7f7@[129.79.36.60]>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "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>

no problem.  it happens.
elin

At 12:11 PM +0100 11/4/02, Danny Ayers wrote:
>  >> 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?
>
>Cheers,
>Danny.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax
>[2] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/syntax.html


-- 

Elin K. Jacob, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
SLIS, Indiana University-Bloomington
1320 East 10th
Main Library 011
Bloomington, IN 47405-3907
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 08:13:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:56 GMT