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

Re: Is promoting RDF+XML a lost cause?

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:09:14 +0100
Message-ID: <41A3C31A.9060209@wup.it>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

My2c :-) ..

it is *looking* at the XML in the RDF/XML serialization that can be 
considered a lost cause. People should'nt  look directly at it.
Its like if when the JPEG format was invented instead people said its a 
lost cause since if you look at it with a hex viewer you dont see much
.. and we should all use ascii art instead.

RDFXML does ok the serialization problem, i can export from jena and 
import it in sesame... everything else needs to be solved at a different 
level

in fact.. i believe that in order to  widen acceptance, 
people shouldnt be made to approach RDF in a way so tangled with XML as it is
in the RDF primer.
It's the model and the semantics that matter and make rdf more powerful and actually simple
It's a graph .. so no textual serialization will ever make it clear? 

Phil Dawes wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>I've been reading a lot of XML vs RDF heat recently, and am thinking
>that we've got a bit of a unsurmountable problem when it comes to XML.
>
>I'm arriving at the opinion that we'll never be able to convince the
>majority of developers and hackers to use RDF/XML instead of XML. It's
>just too complicated, even in a cut down form. I suspect that even a
>striped XML format is too confusing (the team I work for had problems
>with this, and they're bright people).
>
>Why? I think it's because the RDF model isn't obvious in the
>serialisation.
>
>The XML infoset is palatable because it corresponds to what people see
>when they read XML - i.e. a tree with attributes. 
>Unfortunately people don't see triples (or a graph) when looking at
>RDF/XML - they see a tree, with additional nasty RDF syntax.
>
>I'm not sure what the solution is. Ideally we'd be pushing a simpler,
>terse, more graph-friendly syntax (maybe a cut down version of
>turtle). The problem of course is that most developers hearts and
>minds are already committed to XML for data interchange.
>
>Maybe pushing turtle more is a good idea. What do people think?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Phil
>
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 23:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:56 UTC