- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:10:29 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Souri Das <Souripriya.Das@oracle.com>
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Harry, Souri, On 25 Aug 2010, at 17:19, Harry Halpin wrote: > I'd suggest that we use the simplest possible XML > syntax and have a GRDDL (XSLT) transformation to the Turtle/RDF > syntax. If we *have* to have an XML syntax, then I agree that this is the way to go: define the simplest possible XML syntax and have an XSLT that translates it to the RDF syntax. In terms of WG workload and additional implementation cost, this looks quite doable. But the disadvantages I mentioned in the other thread (dilution of education efforts; newbies have to pick a syntax without knowing the consequences; interoperability issues because of syntax expressivity issues) remain. In my mind, creating an alternative surface syntax for a language is a bit like creating a graphical user interface for the language: it just enables a different way of interacting with the language (textual or graphical). Clearly, whatever we do, any vendor is free to create graphical editors or alternative syntaxes as they see fit. As long as a standard exchange syntax exists, interoperability should be achievable despite a multitude of such interfaces (textual or graphical). So, maybe it would be sufficient if the R2RML spec states that conformant R2RML processors MUST support GRDDL, without actually elevating a concrete XML format to W3C Recommendation status? Any opinions? Best, Richard > > cheers, > harry > > > >> >> Thanks, >> - Souri. >> >> Juan Sequeda wrote: >>> +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 <http://www.juansequeda.com> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Michael Hausenblas >>> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org <mailto: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 >>> <mailto:Souripriya.Das@oracle.com>> >>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:01:46 -0400 >>>> To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org >>> <mailto:public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: The syntax issue >>>> Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org >>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 20:11:08 UTC