- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:16:42 +0200
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 31 August 2011 18:10, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote: > [21:12] <manu> Not dealing with normalization is a mistake that RDF > serializations have been making for years... > > Right, RDF/XML has so many different possible serializations that it's > impractical to use standard XML processing tools (XPath, XSLT, XQuery > etc) on it. Which kind of defeats the object of having it in XML in > the first place. > There have been a few 'normalized RDF/XML' proposal, and a few people > have used them locally - but they've never really caught on, probably > because they do demand a normalization step. Or because similar graphs normalise differently? Picking the 'top' node, and deciding when to use refs vs inline sub-elements, isn't trivial. Really, a lot of very smart XML experts have looked deeply at RDF over the years. If it was so easy, ... such an elementary mistake, ... wouldn't someone have got this right, and proposed a better, normalised RDF-in-XML? The fact that such a mechanism hasn't emerged in 14 years, suggests to me that the goal might not be coherent or achievable. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 16:17:10 UTC