Re: Do we have consensus that we don't need more R2RML syntaxes?

> Also, sorry but it has to be said, RDF/XML is a steaming pile of  
> shit. The other syntaxes are superior in just about every way, and  
> I'd rather not do anything to further promote the use of RDF/XML.
>
> Adding more syntaxes has many subtle costs, especially with regards  
> to education and uptake. For example, users new to the technology  
> have to make a syntax choice without being in a position of  
> sufficient knowledge to do so; and when they read tutorials or  
> google for examples then they might find different syntaxes, which  
> might be a rather confusing experience for them. In my eyes, that's  
> a strong and compelling argument against XML.
>
> Personally, I'd really prefer not to go there, and just not deliver  
> on the “SHOULD have XML representation” goal in the charter. Having  
> a single normative syntax is best.
>
> (The only thing that the WG has formally decided so far is that  
> Turtle would be used as the syntax in the first public working  
> draft. The option of doing an XML syntax was still very much on the  
> table at that time. AFAIR, syntax hasn't been discussed at all since  
> that time.)


Though I do not like to usage of the language (piece of ...) I agree  
content-wise, hence:


PROPOSAL: The WG decides that Turtle is the single normative syntax  
for R2RML.

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
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

On 22 Jun 2011, at 10:32, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2011, at 03:28, David McNeil wrote:
>> Although I received numerous comments at Semtech regarding the  
>> verbosity of the Turtle representation and a desire for a more  
>> concise syntax
>
> Turtle can be partially blamed for that, but another part is just  
> R2RML's design. It is a lot more verbose than D2RQ's mapping  
> language, despite both being Turtle.
>
>>> [[
>>> Conforming implementations MAY support other RDF serializations  
>>> besides Turtle.
>>> ]]
>>
>> Would adding that sentence satisfy the goal of the charter to  
>> provide an XML representation?
>
> My honest technical assessment: no, it doesn't.
>
> Processing arbitrary RDF/XML with XML tools doesn't work as  
> expected, in general. To make R2RML processable with XML tools, it  
> would need a restricted RDF/XML serialization that prescribes how to  
> deal with nesting, RDF/XML striping, rdf:Description versus class  
> elements and so on. This is what was done for RSS 1.0, for example.  
> It tends to make neither XML users nor RDF users very happy.
>
> Also, sorry but it has to be said, RDF/XML is a steaming pile of  
> shit. The other syntaxes are superior in just about every way, and  
> I'd rather not do anything to further promote the use of RDF/XML.
>
> Adding more syntaxes has many subtle costs, especially with regards  
> to education and uptake. For example, users new to the technology  
> have to make a syntax choice without being in a position of  
> sufficient knowledge to do so; and when they read tutorials or  
> google for examples then they might find different syntaxes, which  
> might be a rather confusing experience for them. In my eyes, that's  
> a strong and compelling argument against XML.
>
> Personally, I'd really prefer not to go there, and just not deliver  
> on the “SHOULD have XML representation” goal in the charter. Having  
> a single normative syntax is best.
>
> (The only thing that the WG has formally decided so far is that  
> Turtle would be used as the syntax in the first public working  
> draft. The option of doing an XML syntax was still very much on the  
> table at that time. AFAIR, syntax hasn't been discussed at all since  
> that time.)
>
> Richard

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 10:09:21 UTC