W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: hiding RDF

From: Andrew Newman <andrew@pisoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:24:11 +1000
Message-ID: <402AE3CB.6000207@pisoftware.com>
To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Alberto Reggiori wrote:
> 
> 
> hi Jeremy
> 
> On Feb 11, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>>> I have also done work with Patrick Stickler on a triple based XML 
>>> syntax and named graphs that I will circulate tomorrow - this too we 
>>> could talk about.
>>
>>
>> It can be found at
>>
>> http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/jjc/tmp/trix.pdf
> 
> 
> intriguing approach your :) I found especially tasty the solution you 
> give how to add provenance/context information to RDF graphs - is there 
> any parser or software supporting your new syntax or XSLTs to convert 
> TriX syntax to full-blown RDF/XML?
> 

I was hoping for an improvement to the original RDF/XML syntax and 
basically got N3 meets XML.  Not a bad thing mind you, for machine to 
machine transmission and integration into existing XML tools which I 
think was the point.  But I think that later maybe fairly limited it 
doesn't seem to solve enough problems.

I know when I'm using N3 and I suspect with TriX putting the statements 
back together again (frames(?), properties hanging off the resources) is 
what I'll end up doing.

I have a hard time imagining that it will make it possible to use XSLT 
and take a RSS 1.0 feed and transform it into an RSS 2.0 feed. 
Although, anything is possible with XSLT but we have to make sure it's 
the best choice.  I'd like an example showing that this is the best 
approach.  Other approaches, like mapping known RDF data to an XML 
vocabulary seems easier to me.

The addition of naming graphs is definitely a good thing.

> anyhow - while playing here with some pilot projects and trying to sell 
> RDF based solutions to real customers we found very hard selling the XML 
> "bits" of RDF, unless we have a good/smart/clever way to "hide it" 
> behind some more familiar XML shell. Your paper (and others) seems 
> touching this issue at different levels - but we have to admit that we 
> still have problems  convincing customers to buy RDF "specific" syntaxes 
> like your TriX - while using them, users are generally scared away - 
> unless it resembles something more familiar to simple 
> "what-you-see-is-what-you-mean" well-formed XML.
> 

RDF/XML is actually an improvement over many home grown XML 
serializations that I've come across that I trying to do the same thing 
i.e. describe a graph based system.

If you have to provide a user with an XML format get them to define it 
and create it directly out of your triple store.  There really doesn't 
seem to be a requirement there for an XML format of triples, in that 
respect.

I'm not sure how TriX is solving the human readability problem, if 
anything the paper seems to suggest that RDF/XML is more readable than 
simple triple based formats and it is still machine readable.  I find it 
cumbersome to think in triples and I would imagine most developers would 
as well.

> a part RPV - have you (or other people on this list) ever gave a closer 
> look to more XML "friendly" (or lightweight) approaches to RDF like the 
> xemantics TAP approach?
> 
> http://tap.stanford.edu/xemantics.html
> 
> at first sight it looks quite what an XML user would love to see or use :)
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 21:24:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC