W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: ACTION: elaborate on 4.4

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:26:32 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040618122632.GB18696@monkeyfist.com>

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:55:25AM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> There is one, defined recommendation for serializing RDF graphs - its
> RDF/XML [1].  The one point of having a recommendation is so everyone can
> implement one thing, and not many.

And yet people keep making new ways to serialize RDF graphs. This
suggests to me what people have been saying about RDF-XML forever: it
has some warts and doesn't fit some (many?) situations. I happen to
think -- the layer cake be damned (eaten?) -- that non-XML
serializations of RDF are (or can be) a very good thing. I don't want
to give those communities *no way* to use DAWG compliantly.

Sorry, but "one ring to bind them"-style arguments fall super flat
with me. Standardization != restriction of choices to 1 only.

> Alternative serialization that encode more information (TriX for the named
> graphs, some way of using N3 with formulae) is one thing: promoting
> alternative serialises of RDF just negates the value to clients (samll and
> large) of having one serialization to deal with.

Tell that to Sir TBL! :>

Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 08:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:27 UTC