RE: XML Syntax



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: 13 April 2009 20:43
> To: RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: XML Syntax
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> It seems unlikely (:() that I shall be able to call in tomorrow (I'm
> traveling and -- like the packing incapable person that I really
> really am -- forgot my phone charger.)
> 
> I'm trying to make arrangements with my teaching so that I can be on
> the call next week.
> 
> I think the idea of an XML (toolchain friendly) Syntax is pretty
> obvious. I don't recall there being active hostility to it last group
> -- basically the champions (Kendall and me) ran out of steam.

I am expecting it to capture the AST for a query and it would be useful to more formally define the abstract syntax.  The grammar has both fine-grained and text-oriented detail as well as the abstract syntax so driving the design from picking out key grammar rules would be a good start IMHO.  The old design was for a form of the language that was rather different to what it became.

There is an alternative which is to capture the algebra form in XML serialization, rather than the syntax.  For machine processing, we find the algebra easier to work with than the syntax.

> 
> Re: RDF syntax. As I wrote before (and I believe on the champion
> page), this won't help with using XML tools or outreach to heavy XML
> users. RDF/XML just doesn't play nice in today's XML world...it *was*
> a pretty early application and it shows.
> 
> Manchester doesn't care one way or the other about a triply syntax. I
> will note that the prior working group did reject a triple syntax
> (based on N3) for SPARQL queries (though adopting Turtleishness for
> BGPs). 

A different issue.  The N3-QL proposal was semantics as well.

> I believe that the debate took place at a Boston F2F with TimBL
> championing the triply syntax, but I was in other group meetings for
> those bits, IIRC. Perhaps Andy or Steve recall more (Lee? were you
> there?)?

Not how it happened as I recall.  The N3-QL proposal was one of the strawman proposals.  Well before Boston.

The syntax did change at Boston but from ()-triples to {}-patterns - both are text-oriented forms.

> Anyway, I don't think that binds us per se, but I do think it's a
> separate issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

It was a long time ago,

 Andy

Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 20:04:42 UTC