Re: Default RDF serialization

Reza,

David's original proposal included the separation of model to 
serialization.  He said:
> FWIW, if the LD profile is going to recommend one RDF serialization as
> the default for RDF, I would argue strongly that it should be Turtle
> instead of RDF/XML, because:

David is saying for the RDF (model) he would recommend the RDF 
serialization of Turtle  So, IMHO, the separation has been completed. 
Arthur is talking about an alternative data model for some resources that 
have some characteristics where an RDF may not be adequate.  So I see 
Arthur starting a different discussion on an alternative model (and 
supporting serializations) for some use cases he has.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net

"Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/23/2012 03:19:39 
PM:

> From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 08/23/2012 03:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Default RDF serialization
> 
> While I hate to sound like a broken record, I think at this point there 
is 
> enough input from various folks on the thread (Arthur, Steve, Kingsley, 
> David, Ashok, etc.) that the key is to separate model from 
serialization. 
> If that separation is made, then we can address things like performance, 

> specific serialization formats (JSON-LD, etc.), potentially add new 
> serialization formats in the future, enforce consistency between 
> serialization formats via the model, etc.
> 
> So, IMHO, the first step would be to create a separation between 
> serialization and model.  Otherwise, I don't see us coming to a 
consensus 
> around which serialization format(s) should be selected (unless we 
select 
> all of them in which case we'll have a few years worth of work to do).
> 
> Best.
> 
> On 8/23/12 12:13 PM, Arthur Keen wrote:
> Can the LDP-WG consider performance as one of the criteria for selecting 
a 
> default serialization?  RDF topology can factor into serialization 
performance.
> For example, it can be very inefficient to serialize dense tabular data 
and 
> time series data (measurements) into these RDF serializations. 
> 
> Is there a way for us to have  triple-oriented serialization for sparse 
> topologies and a tabular serialization for tabular RDF data in the same 
serialization?
> 
> Arthur
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>  wrote:
> 

> On 8/23/12 10:19 AM, Steve K Speicher wrote:

> I strongly agree as well with these points.  The only reason RDF/XML was
> the only required serialization the member submission is it was the only
> W3C Recommendation and we attempted to only reference "official"
> standards.

> 
> Yes, I understand. Just as (after all these years) I'll never understand 
why
> the W3C hasn't acted on this most distracting and negative reality.
> 
> If RDF/XML's status as the sole syntax can't be addressed by putting 
Turtle 
> on the same standing, then we have even more reasons for an overt and 
> explicit loose coupling of RDF and Linked Data. Sadly, we have the 
complete opposite.
> 

>  Since this appears to be changing within W3C, then this
> limitation no longer exists.  There was no technical reason, the
> preference would be Turtle.  There is some consideration in the amount 
of
> broad support for the serializations and therefore RDF/XML had a little
> appeal but that is perhaps taking a too narrow view without the desire 
to
> move things in right direction.

> 
> RDF/XML provides no benefits to folks that aren't building transformers. 

> Folks like us build data (typically XML sources) transformers 
(cartridges) 
> using RDF/XML, all of that happens behind the scenes and has no real 
impact 
> on end-users and developers bar offering a plethora of formats for 
Linked 
> Data Document content, via content negotiation.
> 

> 
> I think you may have underestimated the problem you identified in (d) as
> this is something that I deal with on a fairly regular basis.
> 
> My preference order for RDF serialization formats would be:
> 1) Turtle  (minimal requirement)

> 
> This is for end-users, integrators, and programmers.
> 

> 2) JSON-LD

> For JSON programmers.

> 3) RDF/XML

> 
> For XML programmers that understand RDF != XML.
> 
> Kingsley

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> http://open-services.net
> 
> David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote on 08/23/2012 10:08:05 AM:
> 

> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> Date: 08/23/2012 10:10 AM
> Subject: Default RDF serialization
> 
> FWIW, if the LD profile is going to recommend one RDF serialization as
> the default for RDF, I would argue strongly that it should be Turtle
> instead of RDF/XML, because:
> 
>  (a) Turtle is far more human friendly to read;
>  (b) RDF/XML is not XML Schema friendly;
>  (c) RDF/XML has XML-based restrictions (such as prohibiting local names
> that start with a digit) that make certain RDF difficult to represent;
>  (d) RDF/XML has had a history of misleading developers who are familiar
> with XML (but not RDF) into thinking that RDF is just a kind of XML.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
>

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 19:47:07 UTC