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

RDF
 triple
   resource
   property
   value
 triple
   resource
   property
   value
   
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:25 GMT