W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: vCard confusion and RDF insufficiency

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:49:01 -0700
Message-ID: <46AA05DD.4060004@globalmentor.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: bnowack@appmosphere.com, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>


Ivan Herman wrote:
> Garret Wilson wrote:
> [snip]
>> Let me stress that I would like the RDF 2.0 effort and the RDF vCard
>> effort to advance in parallel, so that RDF 2.0 in no way holds up RDF
>> vCard. I've already provided Harry with a new RDF vCard update, which I
>> hope to see publicly soon.
> Do you refer to RDF 2.0 as a new version of the RDF model, or do you
> refer to a new version of RDF/XML?

When I say "RDF 2.0", I refer to and only to a new version of the RDF 
model. When I wrote the above paragraph, I had not yet advanced any 
proposal for a new serialization of RDF.

My proposal for RDFON is a distinct proposal for a new serialization of 
RDF. RDFON works fine for RDF 1.x, but it has a certain syntax that 
makes it easier to understand some of my new proposals for RDF 2.0 (such 
as better defined literals).

> As you have just said yourself, and very very rightfully so, the
> separation of the RDF model and the particular serialization syntax
> called RDF/XML is very important. This separation was not properly done
> in the past, and people equate RDF with RDF/XML. While believe and
> repeat every time I can that the core RDF model *is* simple, though,
> unfortunately, its particular serialization called RDF/XML isn't.

I agree that people look at some serialization of RDF and think that the 
serialization is the model. I'd rather have them look at RDFON and think 
that this is the RDF model than to look at RDF/XML and to think that is 
the RDF model. :) Having nodes appear as XML attributes or subelements 
is cool for XML people (like me), for example, but it's just one of the 
many confusing things that probably should have been left out.

> So what do you refer to? I *hope* what you refer to is RDF/XML 2.0...
> Not that we may not have to look at some point at the RDF core model
> again, but that is a very different ballgame...

Sorry, when I say "RDF 2.0" I do no refer to "RDF/XML 2.0". I refer to 
another version of the RDF model.

Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 14:49:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:01 UTC