Re: Normative vs Informative

On 11/27/11 8:38 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> However, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the WebID spec should mandate RDF/XML and only RDF/XML (with either conneg or<link>) for the time being.
>
> The rationale is that RDF/XML is the one serialisation — at present — guaranteed to be supported by RDF consumers, and that RDFa still has some way to go yet before it’s properly reconciled with the HTML5 parsing work. Until it is, any notion of error-handling (vitally important in real web pages) is going to be largely undefined.
>
> What I’d like to see is the RDFa spec build upon the HTML5 parsing rules, so that there’s clarity and consistency in how to deal with RDFa sprinkled into real-world “tag soup” pages, and for validation and other consuming tools to fall into line — AFAIK this hasn’t happened*yet*, and until it does I don’t think RDFa belongs as a MUST for WebID consumers in the spec as it is now.
>
> (Side-note: JSON-LD and RDF/JSON solve different classes of problem; they’re not competing specifications, they’re just two JSON-based serialisations of RDF).

You make a call for sole support of RDF/XML. Then you make a reference 
to RDF in a generic sense. I suspect the generic sense is syntax for 
representing and serializing EAV/SPO based directed graphs.

I have a simple question for you: who are these massive adopters and 
implementers of RDF/XML? Who are these people sitting on the side 
waiting to implement a spec that RDF/XML specific? What is there to gain 
by all of this? Parser developer satisfaction? If so, who are these 
parser developers?

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen