Re: rdf:Description and rdf:about not defined in RDF namespace document

Hi all,

(I am following this list since some years, and while I love all about
Semantic Web)

I think that RDF/XML is the major responsible of the dissatisfaction that
many web developers have wrt RDF.
RDF/XML is an XML but cannot be used by simply parsing it (as XML), you
need an RDF library and even with that you then have to understand and
manage a triple set, not a more intuitive tree/DOM-like structure -
something a web developer is already skilled in.
So, if you think about the experience a web developer has, it is a kind of
false seduction: it's XML! But actually it isn't...

IMHO a simple and easy improvement would be to rewrite the RDF/XML
specification removing few features and make it similar to a plain old XML.
It will be still backward compatible (current RDF/XML parser doesn't have
to be changed, and many RDF/XML serializers already have this plain
output). This V2 would be *also* usable like any other plain XML (similar
to an RSS).

It may be silly at this point (after more then 10 years...), but this would
make it possible to do, say, CONSTRUCT queries on a SPARQL endpoint and use
the result in your app like you do now with any RSS feed...

Hope this make sense to somebody...

In any case, this list is one of my best sunday reading!

Cheers,
Enrico


On 1 December 2013 04:17, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:40:30 +1000, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
>  On 11/29/2013 09:47 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Martinas
>>>
>>> I understand those are syntactic RDF/XML sugar. But in that case one
>>> can wonder why they are defined in the same namespace as proper
>>> "things" which have specified semantics.
>>> (Agreed there is no way to change that now, just trying to figure how
>>> to explain this to beginners looking at the spec).
>>>
>>
>> I agree.    My inclination would be have them in the namespace document
>> as just type "Resource".   I know that's redundant, but to a human
>> reader it makes the point that we're NOT saying they are Properties or
>> Classes.      And then have an rdfs:comment explaining the situation.
>>
>> How's that sound?
>>
>
> Makes good sense to me.
>
>
>        -- Sandro
>>
>>  Seems to me the good answer in the long run is : forget about RDF/XML
>>> an use Turtle :)
>>>
>>
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>         chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>
>


-- 
Enrico Daga

--
http://www.enridaga.net
skype: enri-pan