Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

2010/1/15 Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>:
> Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>>> * an RDF/XML profile (as above) designed for maximum compatibility
>>> with XPath/XSLT/XQuery
>>
>> That would be nice. I often thing that RDF/XML is not a terribly good way
>> to encode RDF in XML.
>
> TriX was meant to address that need. I do not believe its take up has been
> significant.
> For several years now my view has been that RDF/XML is an obviously flawed
> system, with no compelling alternative.

As an aside, do you think that if the W3C had (or would) put it's
stamp on TriX, even just as a note with examples, it would (have)
gained more uptake?

There was the clunky 1998/99ish RDF/XML stuff which had eyeballs from
xml-dev on it, but until relatively recently it seemed like the XML
world and the RDF world were completely different planets. Now with
the likes of Jeni & Bob DuCharme jumping on board the RDF raft it
seems there is real crossover. (Not to mention the OpenLink one store,
many views approach).

Cheers,
anny.

-- 
http://danny.ayers.name

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 11:08:57 UTC