- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:38:57 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, Thanks for your comments. I guess you are right that solving this issue could be done via SWIG, although I don't expect to get very far there. I was hoping for a small group of focused people, but yeah, maybe there is a chance to start something similar to the recently created vCard/RDF work. Cheers, Benjamin On 11.01.2007 15:19:58, Ivan Herman wrote: >Benjamin, > >while the core technical issue is obviously of interest, I do believe >that is not something that we should do under the heading of the SWEO >group. I am just concerned of running thin. In my view, this is the type >of discussion that is best fit on the SW Interest Group... [this is just >my process hat on...:-)] > >B.t.w.: (and puttting down all my hats:-) I am not sure that a >simplified XML syntax is really what we would need from a SWEO >perspective. I am bit mixed up where Ora referred to this (I think it >was answering Lee's blog): now that the RDF/XML parsers are omnipresent, >why would we care about the details of an XML encoding? What we need is >an understanding that the model and XML are different. That is why we >will try to get some more formal stamp on Turtle (I hope this will work >out); that is why also I see RDFa as an important tool. Ian raised a >JSon format: I did not think about it before but, well, yes, why not? > >Ivan > >Benjamin Nowack wrote: >> >> OK, this would probably fit better in SWD, but it's related to >> SWEO as well. Just some food for more thought: >> >> One of the (IMO) most destructive SemWeb misconceptions is the >> "RDF = RDF/XML" one. I guess we all agree that one of SWEO's >> objectives should be to provide (links to) easy-to-grok material >> for SemWeb newbies that make the distinction clear. However, if >> want to go beyond these simple education tasks, we have to >> reach out and get more people of the larger Web dev community >> involved. I personally don't have a problem with RDF/XML, and >> I always sigh when the "RDF/XML sucks" perma-thread reappears >> every other month, but fact is: >> * there *is* a perma-thread >> * it's sucessfully used by SemWeb opponents (and proponents >> as well, for that matter) to hinder community growth >> * even many RDFers don't like it >> * it *is* the recommended syntax >> * we are not in a position to make everyone switch to >> e.g. turtle; embedded RDF approaches don't work for >> all use cases, and generally, an XML-based syntax >> makes a lot of sense >> * even the most simple SemWeb "hello world" will include >> some serialization, any useful *2nd step* will include >> parsing/consuming >> * developers didn't forget the pain and frustration when >> they gave up on trying to write an RSS 1.0 parser >> >> So, assuming our wake-up efforts are a huge success and everyone >> gets interested in SemWeb development, how can we make sure >> that this 2nd step mentioned above doesn't become a showstopper? >> Of course, turtle is one way, but I think we'd be significantly >> more successful if we could offer an RDF/XML subset that's easy >> to write, and (more importantly) easy to parse with existing XML >> tools. And I believe the main benefit wouldn't be a technical, >> but a marketing/motivation one. When I wrote my RDF/XML parser >> in PHP using libxml, I managed to have a basic version running >> in less than an afternoon, but it took me months before it >> covered all the different optional features in the spec. >> >> >> I'm not sure what my concrete proposal for SWEO would be, I'd >> at least like to see >> * an as-short-as-possible "essential RDF syntax" document, >> that, after reading it once, allows developers to write valid >> RDF/XML (and turtle?) documents. >> >> What I'm dreaming of is: >> * a more spec-like "RDF/XML Lite", that is a valid subset >> of RDF/XML, XSLT and XML parser-friendly, and that allows >> average coders to easily create conforming parsers and/or >> converters >> * we manage to persuade toolkit developers to offer this >> serialization as an output option >> * we manage to persuade app/extension/plugin developers to >> update their RDF/XML export formats >> * alternatively we manage to deploy some simple >> rdfxml2rdfxmllite scripts >> >> I think this would be doable, it's a little bit like DOAP, or >> the foafnet effort from a few years back, just more general. >> I think it would be easy to get consensus on the features this >> RDF/XML subset should (not) have, Leo even started a wiki >> page[1] some time ago. What's missing is just someone to >> collect requirements, write it up properly and some authority >> to spread the word. >> >> Congrats, you reached the end of this post. Fell free to >> tell me this is entirely off-topic ;) >> Ben >> >> [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SimpleRdfXml >> >> > >-- > >Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html >FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 15:40:22 UTC