- From: Elin K. Jacob <ejacob@indiana.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:13:26 -0500
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "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>
no problem. it happens. elin At 12:11 PM +0100 11/4/02, Danny Ayers wrote: > >> 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 -- Elin K. Jacob, Ph.D. Associate Professor SLIS, Indiana University-Bloomington 1320 East 10th Main Library 011 Bloomington, IN 47405-3907
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 08:13:48 UTC