- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:18:10 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQLX > > There are two flavor of proposal on the table: > > The old SPARQLX proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0414.html > An RDF based proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2009Mar/0010.html > > > I personally do not find an RDF/XML syntax to meet my requirements > (since RDF/XML doesn't play that well with the XML toolchain), though an > RDF based syntax may be desirable for other reasons. I have two concerns with the SPARQLX proposed feature: 1) Is it currently implemented anywhere? Looking through the old discussions it sounds like Kendall was going to be implementing it; do you know if he did? do you know if anyone else did? 2) As the query language evolves, so too will the XML syntax have to evolve. This puts a small burden on any people extending the language in the future, but more than that, what's the latest state-of-the-art with respect to evolving XML schemas? Does extending a schema as the language extends break backwards compatibility for tools that validate against an older schema? (As you can probably tell, I'm not much of an XML-head, so apologies if this question is non-sensical.) (FWIW, while these are concerns, they're both mild concerns. On the flip side, I've been asked about XML serializations of SPARQL repeatedly in the past, so I think there is sufficient demand for it.) To me, the RDF syntax proposed by Holger has the benefit that there is one implementation of it and the start of a 'specification', but I haven't heard much clamor elsewhere for an RDF serialization. Just my initial thoughts in advance of discussing this on next week's telecon. Lee
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 21:18:50 UTC