- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:17:31 +0000
- To: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Cc: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, Michael Martin <martin@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Christopher Jona Sahnwaldt <christopher@sahnwaldt.de>, Matthias Weidl <matthias.weidl@googlemail.com>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Robert Isele <robertisele@gmail.com>
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 15:17 +0100, Sebastian Hellmann wrote: > So basically XHTML+RDFa is incompatible with RDF/XML in this respect. > Let's say the original data is kept in XHTML+RDFa. If it is spread in > the Web of Data from host to host and somebody tries to serialize it > in RDF/XML his parser/serializer is bound to fail. That is true. But this is a problem with RDF/XML rather than XHTML+RDFa. Neither of these formats is capable of representing all RDF graphs, though the latter is closer than the former. RDF/XML falls down because some URIs cannot be encoded into QNames. But both are restricted by the fact that certain characters are not allowed in XML. Turtle and N-Triples should be able to cope with any RDF graph that you want to serialise. Each of these are pretty widely supported and both are kinda almost W3C Recommendations. (A very Turtle-like syntax forms the basis of the SPARQL Query Language, which is a Rec; N-Triples is described in the RDF Test Cases Rec.) -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 19:18:21 UTC