- From: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:17:35 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy@seaborne.org>, Fabien.Gandon@inria.fr
I'm with the others who recognize RDF/XML as a fine specification for what it does, while recognizing there is much it isn't good at. I also believe both the XML and RDF communities are sorely lacking a good standard way to exchange graph models in XML. It's not as if this is a new problem. XML is strongly biased toward hierarchical structures, but has always had referencing features to enable graph representation. The STEP community, ISO 10303, long ago standardized ways of exchanging graph data structures both in plain ASCII records (10303-21) and later in XML (10303-28). The latter specification could, I think, be used as a model for another XML RDF syntax. ISO 10303-28 includes both an early-binding form, which creates a model-specific XML element/attribute vocabulary based on domain entity and attribute names, and a late-binding form, which uses a standard element/attribute vocabulary for expressing model-specific graphs. Regards, --Paul On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 14:06 -0400, David Booth 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 Friday, 10 June 2016 03:18:05 UTC