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

Re: parsers that don't need rdf:RDF?

From: Jeff ZHANG <jeffzhang726@yahoo.com.cn>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:41:44 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <20020928034144.1951.qmail@web20705.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

As to my experience of developing an Java RDF parser,
the optional things of RDF are really hateful,
especially the optional rdf:RDF elements and
abbreviated syntax. 
If my understanding is right, RDF contents are mainly 
to be processed by machines rather than human. One of 
the virtues of XML is that it omits the optional
features because XML is more for machines than human.
I think RDF should be more machine-friendly than
human-friendly as well----in fact,I don't think these
options could provide more convenience than confusions
for human authors and readers.

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
> > Indeed, this "rdf:RDF" requirement makes otherwise
> compact RDF annotations
> > somewhat bulky.
> > I would propose that processors may derive
> RDF-ness of the metadata
> > by resolving namespace URI to see if it is an RDF
> schema.
> > Otherwise it may just ignores the metadata.
> >
> > Currently most RDF processors require
> "resolvability" of  schema URI-s.
> > With this proposal they will only assume that they
> are parsing an RDF
> > fragment
> > if the namespace resolves to an RDF schema.
> >
> > --Nikita.
> One of the design constraints on RDF was that the
> content (as
> graph) of these documents should be self standing,
> ie. not need you to go
> retrieve, parse, interpret further documents on the
> Web before you can
> figure out what its content amounts to. This concern
> also explains RDF's
> apparent verbosity: it makes everything (sometimes
> painfully) explicit,
> instead of relying on possibly remote external
> documents.
> That said, a lot of people are interested in
> exploring the use of XML
> Schema annotations to map from more colloquial XML
> into RDF graphs.  IMHO
> there's a major role for this approach too, so long
> as we have at least
> one syntax for RDF that takes the self-standing
> view...
> cheers,
> Dan
> -- 
> mailto:danbri@w3.org
> http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/

Do You Yahoo!? 
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 23:41:46 GMT

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