- From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:41:38 +0800
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote: > The concerns centre around how closely RDF is > associated with one particular RDF interchange syntax, namely the > XML-based format described alongside the RDF model in the Model and Syntax > Recommendation. RDFists have generally anticipated multiple syntaxes, or > (equivalently?) software architectures that extract RDF data structures > from a wide variety of concrete representations. Nobody is considering a > rewrite of the model, but there is widespread concern that the current > syntax is sub-optimal, and holding back progress with RDF > generally. The problems with RDF syntax were pointed out before the PR came out. I think the RDF people have treated XML as a serialization syntax, where RDF application -> XML (standard, serialization) -> RDF appplication Hence, a flat format that doesnt fit in with much else. Instead, a more useful model for getting a critical mass of RDF applications would have been: existing non-RDF application -> XML -> RDF application -> XML -> non-RDF application This model would have lead to an attribute-based syntax (e.g. using ISO "attribute forms") to allow RDF annotations on any existing syntax. The other problem with RDF as currently specified include: * The "Formal Grammar" productions are not complete. The allowed attributes rdf:value is not specified anywhere: actually, it is mentioned in the RDF Schema spec, but that only give a references to s.2.3 in the RDF spec which just points to an example. * The RDF spec seems to treat attributes and elements interchangeably: sometimes we get rdf:type attribute, sometimes we get rdf:type element. The pupported "complete BNF for RDF" only gives the attribute form. This slackness comes from not using a DTDs or any other schema framework which would have allowed their formal specs to have been tested by a generic tool. RDF should be an "architecture" not a "framework". RDF should have a DTD Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 28 February 2000 00:38:44 UTC