Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54

On 10 Mar 2009, at 15:41, Sandro Hawke wrote:
[snip]
> I don't think that's the relevant claim.   I read Jan's comment to  
> say:
>
>     If OWL 2 has a serialization which is XML-Schema-friendly, it  
> should
>     use some general solution for making such serializations, not
>     something which is specific to OWL 2.

Well, I read your email to say, "Oh yes, Bijan, I think you are 100%  
right on GRDDL and I'll fight on your side to the death."

Ok, that's a *little* more extreme, but it's pretty hard to see where  
your reading is coming from :)

> Now there are two different kinds of schema-friendliness.  There is  
> the
> TriX style, where the schema checks that you have triples, but doesn't
> care what the triples are.

And would be the most likely thing to be picked up for  
standardization, at the moment.

>   I don't find this very interesting or
> useful; it certainly doesn't meet Bijan's needs.

INDEED.

> I suspect it's not
> what Jan is talking about.
>
> So the interesting/useful kind of schema-friendliness is where the XML
> schema makes sure the right sort of triples are present, in the right
> graph shapes.  That's the kind of schema-friendliness OWL/XML and  
> Rigid
> RDF offer.

Huh? The kind of schema-friendliness really has nothing to do with  
triples, it has to do with making the relevant structures salient to  
an XML Schema like schema language and type system.

> The paragraph I'd like to eliminate seems to argue against the first
> kind of schema-friendliness, which I don't think anyone is actually
> advocating.  Worse, it suggests that because this first kind of
> friendliness is painful, all kind of generalized schema- 
> friendliness are
> painful.

The only demonstrated version of the second I've seen was RSS 1.0.  
And it didn't really work there either.

Current practice is to convert. E.g., GRDDL.

If you want to demonstrate an alternative, then do so. In my  
experience, TriX or TurtleXML is much more the standard notion and  
thus much more likely what Jan is meaning, to the degree he has  
anything specific in mind.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 17:11:03 UTC