Re: A certain difficulty

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:

> > Nobody is considering a rewrite of the model, but there is
> > widespread concern that the current [XML] syntax is sub-optimal,
> > and holding back progress with RDF generally.

I'll hazard the guess that the Formal Grammar section, more than
anything else, is what could be driving people away in droves;)

> 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.

I think it's a bit worse than that.  What passes for the serialization
scheme is adhockery all the way.  (For instance, if there were a
"standard" XML serialization of labelled digraphs - not that hard to
devise - a properly articulated RDF => LDG mapping/realization could
have automatically determined the XML form.  Basically, the XML-ized
form, as it stands, doesn't cohere "intuitively".)

> 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.

Oh dear... You're trying to bring in "officially" proscribed ideas...
anathema... (More potshots on the way, now ...?;))

> RDF should be an "architecture" not a "framework".  RDF should
> have a DTD

Isn't the doctrine - think the right think - from 50000 ft to kill off
DTDs?


Arjun

Received on Monday, 28 February 2000 05:08:05 UTC