Re: what about RDF format?


I'm sorry, but I cannot see your point.

> Easy to query provides a way for RDF tools that don't have SPARQL
> interfaces to use a native API or query lang to get at the results.
> For instance, TAP could GET a specific resource like
> and use it's API to get at the results.

Do you mean by TAP?

> However, since the results are XSLT-able, we can use some emergent
> XSLT to transform results format into RDF. Thus, the above example
> query would turn into
> Thus, I propose we do nothing about the RDF format because it can be
> done post-standarization by interested parties.

Are you saying that one can get a query result in a RDF format
by transforming its XML format version?

If so, my preference is rather opposite direction:
we first design RDF format and then get the XML result
(preferably, its RDF/XML serialization).

How to ensure the interoperability/interchangeability of our (current and 
being tweaked)
XML representation format and (to-be-determined) RDF format is another 
concern of mine.

> XSLT can count. I've seen Dom make it count, but Dom gets it to do
> lots of things that mortals can't.

# Dom = Dominions / Dominations? : )
# I can't parse the last sentence, btw.


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 03:24:57 UTC