Re: Additional non-RDF-XML syntax considered harmful

I would like to second this comment. However, were issue 97 to be
resolved such that a GRDDL transform to RDF/XML were published, I
would probably change my mind, since then the implementation burden
would be minimal.
I see no reason why this can't be done - it's "a mere matter of
programming". The hardest part might be getting the namespace
declarations right.

It appears issue 97 was closed without really being resolved as there
is no evidence that the XSLT option was seriously expored. Alan in
effect proposed relying on a service (CGI via XSLT), but that is not a
good alternative - it is too complex and fragile.

Jonathan

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Frank van Harmelen
<Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> We are positively opposed to introducing the (non-RDF) XML
> serialisation. It's entirely up to the WG to adopt a different
> structural specification / abstract syntax if that makes it easier to
> define the semantics of the language etc, but we can see no good
> reason for turning this internal formalisation-tool into a normative
> *additional* serialisation syntax.
> The merits of the new syntax are justified in terms of debatable
> arguments (a preference for either axiomatic or frame-based syntax is a
> matter of taste, not fact).
> We also don't see how the introduction of
> two serialisation syntaxes (RDF-XML and non-RDF-XML) can make life
> easier for developers. Arguably the non-RDF-XML syntax is easier to
> handle, but it is mandatory for tools to implement the RDF-XML syntax,
> so it's just additional burden.
> (see conformance statement 2.1 in <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-test/>)
> Also, introducing the non-RDF-XML syntax breaks upwards compatibility:
> Without any modification, many OWL1 tools will be able to parse all of
> OWL2 in  the RDF-XML syntax and most likely even make some semantic sense
> of it, while the same OWL1 tools will barf at (or at best entirely
> ignore) the same OWL2 ontologies when expressed in the non-RDF-XML
> syntax.
> It is also noticeable that the Features document does not give any
> supporting use-cases for the introduction of the new syntax.
> Summarising: this will be a burden on tool developers, and will break
> compatibility.
> Finally, it breaks with the widespread semantic-web practice that
> triples are the exchange currency.
> In short: we strongly insist that this syntax will be made non-normative
> (comparable to the non-RDF-XML syntax for OWL1)
>
> In relation to this previous point, we would find it useful if the
> documents would show the triple-serialisation (ie in RDF-XML) of the
> various new constructs, similar to the Guide document for OWL1
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/>
>
> Frank van Harmelen,
> and many members of the Semantic Web Group at the Vrije Universiteit
> Amsterdam
>
> --
> Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl             http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh
> Working on the Large Knowledge Collider http://www.LarKC.eu
>
>

Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 14:01:50 UTC