Re: The syntax issue

+1 for RDF serialization

RDF people will be happy with this. But what about the DB people?  I'm
guessing Richard can confirm this with the D2R experience. But Souri, what
do you think? A DB person with bare little experience in RDF, would they be
comfortable?

Is there another serialization that we should think about/ plan for the
future?


Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:

>
> > But, we should also consider having an XML syntax just b/c of its
> > popularity and widespread familiarity.
>
> Hmm, I think in terms of manual editing Richard has made very good points
> and I've so far not really seen good arguments for XML beside the above
> (which is, I think, not the strongest one ;)
>
> > However, as Ashok said, if we have more than one syntax we should also
> > have tools to translate from one syntax to another.
>
> That's easy. If we have Turtle as syntax (which I do prefer due to many
> reasons, most of them already covered by Richard), then I'd claim that any
> RDF processor out there can immediately turn it into RDF/XML :)
>
> 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: Souri Das <Souripriya.Das@oracle.com>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:01:46 -0400
> > To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: The syntax issue
> > Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:02:36 +0000
> >
> > I have not had time to carefully go thru Richard's justifications for
> > RDF serialization yet, but I think RDF serialization may be needed.
> > But, we should also consider having an XML syntax just b/c of its
> > popularity and widespread familiarity.
> > However, as Ashok said, if we have more than one syntax we should also
> > have tools to translate from one syntax to another.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Souri.
> >
> > ashok malhotra wrote:
> >> If we are arguing syntax then we are done :-)
> >>
> >> If we end up with more than one syntax it would be good if it was
> >> possible
> >> to automatically translate from one syntax to the other.
> >> All the best, Ashok
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> >>>> I propose to proceed based on the concepts of Souri's approach, but
> >>>> with an RDF serialization instead of XML as the surface syntax.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>       Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>