Re: Syntaxes of the mapping language

Toby,

> If the RDF syntax were the only normative one, a simplified XML syntax
> could perhaps be published as a Note with accompanying GRDDL transform.

This seems like a sensible option, yes, thanks. Though, I note we should be
careful if we refer to 'the RDF syntax'; as you know there are two official
RDF serialisations (RDF/XML and RDFa) and a couple of unofficial ones
(Turtle, etc.), hence I'd suggest that we are always as explicit as possible
regarding this ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:11:04 +0100
> To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
> Cc: <public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Syntaxes of the mapping language
> Resent-From: <public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:11:52 +0000
> 
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>> "The mapping language SHOULD have a human-readable syntax as well as
>> XML and RDF representations of the syntax for purposes of discovery
>> and machine generation."
>> 
>> In my opinion this is way too many representations (given that RDF
>> itself has dozens of syntaxes already) which will be a huge burden on
>> the implementors.
> 
> If the RDF syntax were the only normative one, a simplified XML syntax
> could perhaps be published as a Note with accompanying GRDDL transform.
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 08:16:51 UTC