- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:20:43 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy@seaborne.org>, Fabien.Gandon@inria.fr
Honestly I don't understand why RDF/XML is getting such a bad rap :) Sure, the spec could have been better with fewer variations, but if you don't do nesting and keep descriptions "flat", the output is perfectly predictable. That is the default Jena output and we have been transforming it for years. It is a convenient XML structure when related stuff is grouped under a parent element, such as properties of a resource, or resources of a graph. RDF/XML can provide that, TriX and SPARQL XML results cannot. On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:06 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > On 06/09/2016 11:44 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> we have a use case where we need an RDF format in XML syntax that >> 1. supports named graphs >> 2. has a convenient structure for XSLT transformations >> >> RDF/XML fails at #1, TriX fails at #2. >> >> I suggest extending RDF/XML with a concept of named graph, > > > Please don't. The more we can get away from RDF/XML the better. > > How about using the W3C standard SPARQL 1.1 XML results format, with quads: > subject, predicate, object and graph? > https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/ > > David Booth
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:21:12 UTC