RE: XML vs. RDF vs. N-Triples vs. N3 vs. CSV saga is up again (was: Re: Toss NTriples -- RDF Reification is all we need ) from Joshua Allen on 2002-06-06 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from June 2002)

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:45:26 -0700
To: <areggiori@webweaving.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <dirkx@covalent.net>, "Zavisa Bjelogrlic" <netzac@virgilio.it>
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C10576BEBE@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> your XML syntax for triples has been proposed on this list at least
other

I looked at all of those links, and did not see the proposal.

> moment in the near future :) I do not want to worry anymore about what
> will happen tomorrow, whether a new syntax will be proposed by some
clever

That is why I like Patrick's suggestion.  It isn't really a "new
syntax", but just a "canonical RDF".  If you have a parser that parses
RDF, it will parse this syntax.  So you can go ahead and continue doing
things the complicated way, or you can use canonical RDF when you want
to test graph isomorphism, write a bare-bones parser, and so on.

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 18:45:59 UTC