- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:31:43 +0100
- 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 off.) Best regards, Niklas
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 22:32:38 UTC