- From: Sophie MABILAT <Sophie.Mabilat@apitech.fr>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:24:27 +0100
- To: "'Rick JELLIFFE'" <ricko@allette.com.au>, xml-dev@xml.org
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Please, could someone tell me how to unsubscribe this list... > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au] > Envoyé : lundi 28 février 2000 06:42 > À : xml-dev@xml.org > Cc : www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Objet : Re: A certain difficulty > > > 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 > > > ************************************************************** > ************* > This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. > To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev > List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html ***************************************************************************
Received on Monday, 28 February 2000 05:25:23 UTC