On 2003-11-04 12:37, "ext Graham Klyne" <> wrote:

> ...
> At first glance, I like your XML serialization for RDF, particularly when
> coupled with the RhizML syntax.  Maybe we don't really need a new syntax
> for RDF right now, but this does seem to capture a nice balance of
> directness w.r.t. the RDF model, and simplicity.
> ...

What concerns me about such well-formed-only XML serializations is that
they cannot be validated based on a DTD or XML Schema (and yes, I know
that RELAX-NG may work, but IMO that's not enough).

If compactness is needed, for manual human input, then I would advise
that XML not be used at all, but rather something like N3.

If RDF/XML is ever supplanted by another standardized XML serialization,
I think it is imperative that it be vocabulary/ontology agnostic, and
be a fully well behaved XML application, able to be used with validating
XML editors, etc. while at the same time, minimizing the number of
different ways the same knowledge can be expressed, and being reasonably
useful with tools such as XPATH, XSLT, etc.

My own stab at such a thing is, not
that I'm advocating any new XML serialization for RDF in the near future.

> Overall, based on a quick scan, I think this looks like rather nice work.

I agree. Some very interesting stuff there. Though I still remain a bit
skeptical about processing RDF knowledge in the same fashion as XML. I've
got a gut feeling that it "misses the point" of RDF in one way or another,
though I can't at the moment put my finger on it...


Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2003 07:01:03 UTC