W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2004

Re: on independence of elements, relating versions [XMLVersioning-41]

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:53 +0100
Message-ID: <905348660.20040318103553@w3.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

On Thursday, March 18, 2004, 6:01:14 AM, Tim wrote:

TB> On Mar 17, 2004, at 4:34 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>> As some of you have probably heard me state too often:  it's exactly
>> this
>> tension between two interesting architectures, both of which we are
>> promoting to our users at about the same time, that most concerns me
>> about
>> the coexistence between XML and RDF.

TB> As I've said, I think that XML makes handy plumbing for serializing RDF
TB> triples.  I think, however, that the existing RDF/XML syntax 
TB> aggressively obfuscates the underlying graph to the point that it's a
TB> serious deadweight around RDF's neck.

This is to hide it from HTML renderers.

TB>  I've on a number of occasions
TB> proposed a brutally minimalit XML syntax for RDf with only three 
TB> elements: resource, property, and value.

TB> I agree 100% with Dan that XML's native tree/sequence data structure is
TB> entirely a red herring for RDF. -Tim

Although XML can be used for 'database dump' structures where all the
children of the root are identical. So

Four elements, entirely regular.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 04:36:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:41 UTC