Re: RDF syntax 'improvements'? - was RE: [Fwd: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification needed.]

Amen. It would be nice to have a standard "log" format for  triples.

guha

Dan Brickley wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Perry A. Caro wrote:
>
> > Lee,
> >
> > If you look back at the archives, you'll see a long series of messages about
> > simplifying the RDF syntax.  The most radical proposal was to reduce the RDF
> > serialization to simple statements, like:
> >
> > <srdf:Statement prop="title" res="...URI">Literal Value</srdf:Statement>
> > <srdf:Statement prop="creator" value="#id001" res="...URI"/>
> > <srdf:Statement prop="rdf:_1" res="id001">Author 1</srdf:Statement>
> > <srdf:Statement prop="rdf:_2" res="id001">Author 2</srdf:Statement>
> > <srdf:Statement prop="rdf:type" value="rdf:Bag" res="id001"/>
> >
> > etc.  There were several other proposals, including one from Tim
> > Berners-Lee.
> >
> > The silence may be a way of saying, "Been there, done that." :-)
>
> Seems a shame if we've all got tired of the discussion without actually
> finishing an alternative serialisation spec. There are lots of issues,
> eg. above you use qnames inside attribute values. Also the issue of how to
> identify anonymous/transient nodes in such a way as to not confuse
> generated IDs with 'proper' URIs.
>
> I keep finding myself re-inventing variants on the above syntax (for
> quickie Perl / Javascript work), sometimes just using tab-separated data
> structures. This suggests to me that a writeup of such a syntax would be a handy
> thing to have.
>
> I'd be interested to hear whether a (say) W3C Note specifying such a
> simple lowest common denominator 'rdf dump syntax' would be useful to
> implementors. My own implementation experience suggests 'yes'. Other
> perspectives would be useful...
>
> Dan

Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 21:29:11 UTC