W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

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

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:36:45 +0100
To: "'RDF Interest'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c20bdd$a34e70a0$887ba8c0@mitchum>

Hash: SHA1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
> Stickler 
> I'm very sympathetic to the shortcomings of RDF/XML and the 
> need for easier/better serializations of RDF knowledge -- but 
> *NOT* at the expense of standardized, global interchange of 
> knowledge between disparate systems.


I suspect the end effect is the same. Having RDF/XML wuth
shortcomings doesn't seem to help get standardized, global
interchange of knowledge between disparate systems, it seems to get
in the way of that.

> That's the whole point of standards. You seem to be 
> suggesting that we just ignore the standards and do things as 
> we see best.

The whole point of RDF standards is to create standard RDF
machinery whose behaviour is consistent across implementations.
We're looking to commoditize RDF software, make no mistake. If an
RDF standard is too hard to implement consistently, it is
economically and politically useless in that respect. Having a
standard so we can say we have one is folly. 

> If N3 or NTriples are adopted as *official*, *standard* 
> serializations for RDF interchange, great!
> But until they are, I am strongly opposed to seeing them 
> (mis)used in place of RDF/XML for global interchange.

A good analytic argument can be made to use what works, not what is
supposed to work. 

Bill de hÓra

Version: PGP 7.0.4

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 11:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:36 UTC