- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:15:31 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 10:29 27/02/04 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >One way that TriX might replace RDF/XML is, once we have XSLT 2.0 and a >transform from RDF/XML into TriX (all doable), it is trivial to migrate an >RDF/XML document into TriX (a one line change, adding a processing >instruction). Having done that, it is also possible to add your own >additional transforms. Thus the idea of XSLT as a general syntactic >extension mechanism can extend from TriX into RDF/XML - whether that would >be good or not I don't know - a bit like C preprocessor macros - you can do >a lot, it is very powerful. In particular, you can make your code unreadable >to anyone other than yourself. Ah, I spotted a hint of this in the Trix document, but that makes it clearer to me. I'm not sure that it's really helpful, at this time, to even talk about replacing RDF/XML syntax (whatever one may believe is actually going to happen). I think it represents a stable foundation, or something that can be perceived as such, for building more interesting stuff upon. But, as I said in my response to Patrick, I think the real gains (especially nearer-term) are to be had from simplifying the embedding/extraction of RDF information in/from existing XML data formats. And an XML-processor-friendly approach to representing RDF must surely help that. I think it suggests a credible migration from what we have now (e.g. ad-hoc extraction of RDF from existing data) to where we might hope to be (where the relevant RDF content is generically embedded and available in any data format). There maybe some interesting discussions next week :-) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 07:01:34 UTC