Re: N3 and N-Triples (was: RDF in HTML: Approaches)

"Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> writes:
>
> Well I think that a lot of people embed RDF in XML using the
> ParseType='literal' technique because it comes out the most compatable ..
> but I may be wrong .... I'm not an expert on the w3c standards.  A processor
> of a KRep language doen't really need to inherit complexity and limitations
> from XML ... in other words: what is gained by trying to use the same parser
> for both languages?   So if the carrier languague must be XML, then it is
> simple, imho, to have the XML parser pass off  to the KRep parser with
> ParseType='literal'.   Otherwise me thinks you will have two languages
> fighting with each other.

No, I don't want to see XML at all. The machines should see it.  My point
is that there should be a human understandable surface language (e.g., any
of the forms of triples) and an exchange format (XML encoding).  There
should be 1-1 mapping between valid "human-oriented triple docs" and valid
"xml-ised triple docs". No fight. Humans get theirs and machines get
theirs.

> But I have no particular problem with the way you
> emedded triples above ... my only point was that they were not what the w3c
> has been calling N-Triples .. it was a bit of a nit ... sorry.

All I meant was the above 1-1 mapping idea. I may have misunderstood the
original thread, but it seems to me that it was said that N-triples are out
because they aren't XML. I disagree with this kind of statements and would
like to draw attention (once again) to the XQuery group. They first came up
with a surface language, which is not XML, worked out most of its
syntax&semantics, and only then began work on its XML-ization.



	--michael

Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 22:43:03 UTC