Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

On 12 Sep 2008, at 16:27, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> On 12 Sep 2008, at 16:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Isn't RDF/XML *the* RDF serialization?
>>> That we have turtle in the Primer is just one piece of evidence that
>>> this is not the case. As I said, and as had been argued persuasively
>>> in the past, a solution that is specific to a particular  
>>> serialization
>>> of RDF is undesirable.
>> We don't spec a Turtle serialization of OWL.
>> It seems very odd to constrain ourselves from using standard, widely
>> implemented, W3C technologies as they are intended to be used in
>> order to accommodate a non-normative syntax over which we do not
>> have, nor do we desire, any control.
> I don't know what the issue here it, but on this point I'll jump in:
> it's been clear since at least the 2001 charter for RDF Core that
> RDF/XML was not intended to be the only standard serialization of RDF.
> RIF BLD frames are probably a Rec Track serialization of RDF, and  
> Turtle
> is certainly a de facto standard serialization or RDF.

De facto == non-normative, yes?

My point seems to remain. We don't have control over Turtle. If  
someone wants to extend turtle to cover this feature, they should  
talk with Dave.

Indeed, I don't see why the "cross serialization solution" isn't that  
those other syntaxes adopt their own equivalent to XInclude. If we  
just make up a bit of syntax, it *still* requires modification of all  
the other syntaxes.


Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:37:38 UTC