- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:01:27 +0000
- To: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Cc: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Alberto Reggiori wrote: > intriguing approach your :) I found especially tasty the solution you > give how to add provenance/context information to RDF graphs - is there > any parser or software supporting your new syntax or XSLTs to convert > TriX syntax to full-blown RDF/XML? > No not yet, apart from the DTD and XML Schema it's vapourware ... > anyhow - while playing here with some pilot projects and trying to sell > RDF based solutions to real customers we found very hard selling the XML > "bits" of RDF, unless we have a good/smart/clever way to "hide it" > behind some more familiar XML shell. Your paper (and others) seems > touching this issue at different levels - but we have to admit that we > still have problems convincing customers to buy RDF "specific" syntaxes > like your TriX - while using them, users are generally scared away - > unless it resembles something more familiar to simple > "what-you-see-is-what-you-mean" well-formed XML. > > a part RPV - have you (or other people on this list) ever gave a closer > look to more XML "friendly" (or lightweight) approaches to RDF like the > xemantics TAP approach? The xslt approach is meant to allow *any* XML syntax and then transform it into RDF - i.e. for a specific customer you give them exactly what they want. > > http://tap.stanford.edu/xemantics.html > > at first sight it looks quite what an XML user would love to see or use :) I have not looked at that. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 13:27:17 UTC