- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:11:32 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Bob MacGregor" <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
- Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>> Yes, RDF/XML is inexcusably bad and should go. >> The rest of RDF is seriously held back because of the XML serialization. >> >> Jeremy > > >I fully agree. It would be interesting to hear from the WG why the current RDF/XML hasn't already "gone". There are pretty good alternatives from TimBL [1] and Sergey Melnick [2] dating from 1999, and there have been plenty more suggested since then. A total replacement syntax would throw out a lot of babies, but instead perhaps a separate parallel (WG?) thread could be spawned to work out a new syntax that had less surprises for XMLers, avoiding the current ugliness but could round trip through XSLT to existing RDF/XML. Current RDF/XML wouldn't have to be deprecated. Most of the good work already done on the syntax should carry across, and backwards/sideways compatibility would only be one clearly-defined process away, which could be implemented in most existing systems with a couple of lines of code. The trad XML folks are no longer scared and everyone lives happily ever after? Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax [2] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/syntax.html
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 06:26:50 UTC