RDF syntax (Re: Update to XLink -> RDF mapping)

Ron Daniel wrote:
> So, if you want this work to continue, please express an interest.

Thanks for waking us up, then.
As my interest in this work is great, I'm hoping to get some feedback on that too.

> > To be perfectly honest, I had been assuming that the
> > harvesting would happen through something like XSLT extension
> > functions that directly poked statements into an RDF store,
> > rather than converting to RDF's serialization syntax.

To be perfectly honnest, I think this is the best solution.
The RDF syntax is much controversial, and furthermore is not compliant with XML Infoset nor XML Names
(see the recent post http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jul/0045.html)

By the way, there is a point I don't quite like in the note:
when a simple link has no explicit arcrole, the tag name is expanded in the RDF fashion to be used as the triple's predicate.
Inheriting from RDF that *twisted* use of namespace facilities is IMHO a bad idea.
Why not instead define a common superproperty to all properties and use it as predicate in that case ?

But my big suggestion suggestion is :
[flame shield up}
since the RDF syntax proposed in RDF M&S raises problems inside the RDF community as well as outside it (XML Infoset and XML namespace), why not adopting XLink as the "official" syntax for RDF, based on Ron's note ?
My experience showed me that most people, even familiar with XML, find the RDF syntax cumbersome. My conviction is that the important thing in RDF is the model, so using XLink would make it clearer to RDF-novices, and easier for them to learn it.


--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.

Received on Friday, 28 July 2000 04:59:18 UTC