Collegues, Suppose the both and XML and RDF are "law level" languages. And for real projecting there must be something above them. For example the UML. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cranefield99uml.html "UML as an Ontology Modelling Language" Best regards, Leonid mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru ===================================================== Leonid Ototsky, http://ototsky.mgn.ru Chief Specialist of the Computer Center, Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru Russia ===================================================== Thursday, May 23, 2002, 8:43:48 PM, you wrote: AP> Bill, AP> I am not sure that the XML syntax is a major stumbling block on the road to AP> the adoption of RDF. AP> The counterexample is XSLT that has an even more horrible syntax but it has AP> been widely picked up. AP> My explanation of XSLT success vs RDF failure to gain widespread acceptance AP> is that the use case that XSLT is made to provide, tranforming XML, is both AP> widely needed and easily understood. AP> XSLT provide 'instant satisfaction': you write a transform and some AP> funny-looking XML gets transformed in human-readable HTML. Now that's AP> useful. AP> On the contrary: you describe some resource in RDF and ... not much happens. AP> The set of use cases provided by RDF is much richer but also clearly harder AP> to grasp than the XSLT ones. AP> But I would certainly agree that an aesthetically pleasing syntax that AP> people could write/read easily would help enormously in kick-starting the AP> semantic web. AP> Problem: I don't think that you should be looking at XML for a solution of AP> this problem. AP> Are you aware of any XML syntax that people actually like to use? AP> XML fulfils a very important function in the semantic web as a flexible, AP> easy-to parse, transport syntax but it is far from being easy on the eye. AP> A much better starting point would be N3 or other non-XML syntaxes. AP> What about an official non-XML syntax for RDF optimised for human AP> readability? AP> Best AP> titto AP> ------------------------- AP> Pasqualino "Titto" Assini - Nesstar Ltd AP> John Tabor Building - University of Essex AP> Colchester, Essex - CO4 3SQ - United Kingdom AP> email: titto@nesstar.com <mailto:titto@nesstar.com> personal email: AP> titto@kamus.it <mailto:titto@kamus.it> AP> -----Original Message----- AP> From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net] AP> Sent: 23 May 2002 13:51 AP> To: 'Graham Klyne' AP> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org AP> Subject: RE: Taking an axe RDF in XML? (no thank you) AP> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- AP> Hash: SHA1 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org] >> >> Bill, >> >> I think there's an implicit assumption in your message that >> the existing >> XML serialization of RDF is not suitable for its purpose. AP> Graham, AP> I don't altogether agree, but I suspect have a different notion of AP> fitness for purpose. AP> Let me clarify what I think the purpose of the XML serialization AP> is. The XML serialization is there to get RDF adopted and used, AP> nothing more. Behind that /is/ an assumption and it is this: in AP> software tools, syntax and ease of use count for more than AP> semantics or correctness. AP> The XML serialization is means-ended: it's a carrier, there so that AP> RDF graphs and the underlying consequences of the MT can be held AP> within it. Kendall Grant Clark suggests: AP> [[[ AP> my theory about why RDF is not widely used is that to date it has AP> not been well evangelized. AP> ]]] AP> He's suggested that this is the role of the primer. I'm suggesting AP> that this is the role of the XML serialization. >> I'm not saying it's perfect, just a lot better than it's >> sometimes given >> credit for. It's biggest problem (IMO) was it's original >> documentation >> (which is easy for me to say in hindsight...) AP> I think it's clear enough I agree the state of current syntax draft AP> is a vast improvement over the M&S. On the other hand, the wg did AP> invent ntriples to get some work done and as far as I know is still AP> using it. Not eating your own dogfood is cause for concern. When I AP> see the wg and the director move to the XML, no doubt I'll recant. >> If there's a problem, I think it's that we're failing to >> capitalize on this >> migration path to RDF. AP> I don't agree this is the problem. People are not working and AP> thinking in RDF and that's almost wholly down to the syntax. RDF AP> compatible is good, but is a poor substitute for RDF inside. It's AP> also dissonant; while I'm thinking in domain X in my modelling AP> language, I have to saccade to be sure about RDF upward AP> compatibility. Make it easy for me to think about domain X /in/ RDF AP> not /for/ RDF. >> >4) Wrt to deployment, RDF's costs are frontloaded. We think >> it's going >> >useful, some day, because we have a notion that information >> in RDF form >> >is highly repurposable and easy to merge (serializations >> >notwithstanding). I haven't seen much by way of acknowledgement >> >that RDF is a pension plan for your information, and surely it >> wouldn't hurt >> >any to get this message across some more. >> >> #g: >> >> I agree strongly with almost everything you say here. Except >> that intelligent use of the XML serialization means that the >> front-loaded costs can be practically zero as an increment on >> using XML. Design your XML >> application format to be RDF compatible. Later, when the >> tools are widely >> available to handle this as pure RDF data, a return on almost >> no investment >> can be realized. AP> I think the costs are nowhere near zero, though they have dropped AP> considerably in the last year. AP> Nonetheless, other wgs, specifically WS ones, don't seem all that AP> interested in RDF as base material, unless things have changed in AP> the last few months. It's astonishing to me that WSDL may get out AP> the door and not be written in an RDFXML. AP> I've been hearing about the toolsets for a while. Danbri has AP> suggested in the past the RDF dev community aren't closers of a AP> sort. I challenged it then and still find it an anomaly difficult AP> to credit; it's looking for answers in the wrong place. This is a AP> classic bootstrapping problem; to break the cycle simplify the XML. AP> Syntactically, things still are not user friendly enough and I put AP> that down almost solely to the scope of the charter, not the AP> members of the wg, nor how RDF core goes about its business. AP> I humbly suggest that if a XML syntax is developed, a simple not a AP> clever one, you'll see the tools and people modelling RDF because AP> they have the tools, within six months of that syntax being AP> uploaded. Clear this barrier to adoption and the only thing that AP> can hold back RDF then are the innate complexity of RDF graphs or AP> the innate inability of RDF developers to ship One-Oh code, neither AP> of which I suggest are the barriers purported. Otherwise short of a AP> killer app, RDF will remain a fringe or sleeper technology while AP> the world carries on with the likes of WSDL, XMLSchema, XMI or the AP> Model Driven Architecture. AP> Bill de hÓra AP> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- AP> Version: PGP 7.0.4 AP> iQA/AwUBPOzllOaWiFwg2CH4EQKyPgCg963nyM09Lv2f5Yq2K1Sezukt8NEAn3Jp AP> oh4Nv3W8kRNLJ6ng3VcQ+LL9 AP> =Wgbl AP> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 03:34:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:36 UTC