W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2000

Re: A certain difficulty

From: Arnold deVos <adv@langdale.com.au>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:32:03 +1100
Message-ID: <00c101bf7f94$c3f93600$c52d18cb@army>
To: <xml-dev@xml.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
| .... the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so
| it's hard to know what to do.

In our application we (a) subset the RDF model (leaving out URI pattern,
for example) and (b) employ a simplified (non-striped) syntax.  So I
suppose its not really RDF anymore.

What our application retains is (i) an interpretation of the *stated*
RDF model and (ii) the RDF and RDF schema vocabulary.   BTW, our
experimental syntax uses qnames rather than URI's for references.

I am wondering if the way forward might be to give up on a single,
standard syntax for all RDF serialization.   Instead, create a language
that specifies application-specific mappings between RDF and XML. (I
think there was a hint of this in the Cambridge Communiqué.)

For our part, we have experimented with adapting XSL for translating in
the RDF->XML direction.  A true solution would need to declare a
bi-directional mapping.

This approach concedes that people really want to invent
application-specific XML languages. The idea is to provide a framework
for interoperation that, admittedly, would require the application's RDF
mappings to be available as well as the XML documents.


Arnold deVos
Langdale Consultants
Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 08:33:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:22 UTC