- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:38:53 -0500 (EST)
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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