- From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:00:33 -0700
- To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I don't want to clog the list with nubie questions that might better be asked and answered elsewhere, but I've been wondering: why is RDF/XML *the* standard recommendation for serializing RDF? How come one of the triples-based formats, which look so comparatively simple and straightforward by comparison, aren't at least offered as an alternative? Is there something about a RDF graph that triples are unable to represent? If so, I can't imagine what it would be. Feel free to reply offline if that feels more appropriate. TIA, Howard > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Kendall Clark > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 5:27 AM > To: Seaborne, Andy > Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group > Subject: Re: ACTION: elaborate on 4.4 > > > > 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! :> > > Best, > Kendall >
Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 11:59:52 UTC