W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: RDF, XML, XSLT: Grit

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:31:43 +0100
Message-ID: <cf8107641001251431u5ef6ffa8n3d766232e4788c59@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Christoph,

> … of that kind:  I have successfully done some XSLT processing with RXR
> (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/RXR,
> http://www.dajobe.org/papers/xmleurope2004/).  I found it very nice for XSLT
> processing, as there is exactly one way for writing down things.  On the other
> hand, it's a bit harder to read for humans, as it always uses full URIs, and
> there is not syntax for anonymous bnodes; you always have to give bnodes an
> ID.

Yes, I've chosen a different path with Grit (much closer to RDF/XML,
and in a sense, Atom). I'd love to hear if you'll find its syntax
more, or less, useful for given situations. Thanks for the
perspective, I'll keep it in mind.

> Still, whatever syntax it will be in the end, I support any initiative towards
> deprecating RDF/XML or at least introducing a machine-friendly XML syntax in
> RDF 2.0.

I'm thinking there is a need for this (in the realm of RDF-as-XML),
since the same itches are being scratched over and over.. (A need for
a normalized, readable syntax. Human readers and writers first, parser
writers second, machines come third. ;) )

(And I'm no longer using XML verbatim that often. But it's quite
ubiquitous (as are XSLT processors), and RDF/XML is very rarely useful
as just XML. Some would say for better; but this may scare newcomers

Best regards,
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 22:32:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC