- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:34:23 +0100
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-------- Original Message -------- > From: Kendall Clark <mailto:kendall@monkeyfist.com> > Date: 18 June 2004 13:27 > > 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. That really only makes sense if the non-XML serializations are common. Otherwise, the set up client/server has a dependency in assuming some format is available. I suppose use(abuse? not sur eit is correct use) of OPTIONS is possible. > > Sorry, but "one ring to bind them"-style arguments fall super flat > with me. Standardization != restriction of choices to 1 only. We would, I presume, require that at least RDF/XML is supported as a serialization format for reasons of maximum interoperability. Where additional features (e.g. named graphs) are needed then fine. It's encouraging the alternative serializations of core RDF where I don't understand the need for a requirement. Generally, I don't expect people to look at the results of a DAWG query directly - the output is consumed by some client-side application - so I don't put much weight on the need for alternative serializations. Andy > > > 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 12:35:40 UTC