W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2013

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

From: Enrico Daga <enricodaga@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:47:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGTWk7-0UOCpFZwssewQqHHnvod=pQp=AzhJ4LerbJyi_YVQnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Passin <list1@tompassin.net>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 1 December 2013 16:11, Thomas Passin <list1@tompassin.net> wrote:

> On 12/1/2013 6:27 AM, Enrico Daga wrote:
>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>
> This can be achieved by giving those web developers to use a subset of
> RDF/XML (a profile if you like).  That subset can be chosen to be much
> easier to work with for the uninitiated than full RDF, and can be processed
> more easily by a range of XML tools.  No need for changing the RDF/XML spec.
>
Then, I can give to developers what I want (today json, probably), and I
don't need to call it RDF.
I think in contrast that this is only about the recommended syntax for RDF
(RDF/XML) and how it did not made a good job.
Even if it is quite old, it is still the official syntax, and fixing it can
have significant value.
Said differently, consider how SPARQL endpoints or URI resolvers answer on
application/xml requests. The result is rarely a ready to use XML.
This is bad, IMHO, and deals with the way RDF model have been thought to be
translated to XML: the parent-child relation having the role of an arc...
this may appear clever at first sight, but what a mess!

my 3 cents
Enrico


> For an example, see my paper from Extreme Markup Languages 2007:
>
> http://conferences.idealliance.org/extreme/html/
> 2007/Passin01/EML2007Passin01.html
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Enrico Daga

--
http://www.enridaga.net
skype: enri-pan
Received on Sunday, 1 December 2013 18:48:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:57 UTC