Re: Default RDF serialization

"Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 23-08-2012 21:19:39:

> From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 23-08-2012 21:35
> 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.

+1

Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen
@semanticfire

##############################################################
# netage.nl
# http://netage.nl
# Enschedepad 76
# 1324 GJ Almere
# The Netherlands
# tel. +31(0)36-5347479
##############################################################


> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
>