- From: <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:13:32 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, dean@w3.org
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 09:31 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> * Dave Beckett wrote: >> >It's an amusing idea for this to obsolete RDF/XML, but incomplete and >> >non-optimal compared to RDF/XML, for writing some RDF triples (XML >> >literals for example) and a solution for XHTML2 only. >> >> It's disappointing that you describe ideas of this task force, which >> has an important charter to fulfill, as "amusing". > > As you can see from my quote, I was amused at it replacing RDF/XML, not > the work of the task force. > > The charter of the task force as I understood it was to better embed RDF > in (X)HTML, not to obsolete RDF/XML as a recommended RDF syntax. The > results so far seems like it will succeed in allowing much better > semantic descriptions in HTML markup but that's not the same thing as > writing a new, complete and recommended RDF transfer syntax to replace > the existing one. It's an additional syntax (or syntaxes) not a > replacement. > > Replacement syntaxes would likely have many additional requirements and > considerations and the charter for that work would have to be very > carefully written. I think I've personally experimented with around 3-4 > alternate syntaxes so far with differenet approaches and a couple of > white papers on it with no final conclusions yet. I agree. Creating the next general-purpose successor to the RDF/XML syntax is *not* what we're attempting here. We are fortunate with RDF in that most tools (APIs, databases, query interfaces etc) don't care which syntax was used, so developers and users are -to some extent- protected from changes at the syntax level. And it might be that the world falls in love with the XHTML2 RDF/A notation, and that some format derrived from it becomes widely adopted in the marketplace, in preference to RDF/XML. That's beyond our control. But also, isn't going to happen soon. Talk of this taskforce seeking to "obsolete" RDF/XML is both unhelpful and misleading; Bjoern, please stop it! If you prefer the RDF/A notation, feel free to evangelise its benefits, contribute tools, test cases, documentation etc., but don't go around casting FUD on the existing standard. RDF/XML is stable, well tested, and gets the job done for many applications. cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:13:39 UTC