- From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:09:14 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
My2c :-) .. it is *looking* at the XML in the RDF/XML serialization that can be considered a lost cause. People should'nt look directly at it. Its like if when the JPEG format was invented instead people said its a lost cause since if you look at it with a hex viewer you dont see much .. and we should all use ascii art instead. RDFXML does ok the serialization problem, i can export from jena and import it in sesame... everything else needs to be solved at a different level in fact.. i believe that in order to widen acceptance, people shouldnt be made to approach RDF in a way so tangled with XML as it is in the RDF primer. It's the model and the semantics that matter and make rdf more powerful and actually simple It's a graph .. so no textual serialization will ever make it clear? Phil Dawes wrote: >Hi All, > >I've been reading a lot of XML vs RDF heat recently, and am thinking >that we've got a bit of a unsurmountable problem when it comes to XML. > >I'm arriving at the opinion that we'll never be able to convince the >majority of developers and hackers to use RDF/XML instead of XML. It's >just too complicated, even in a cut down form. I suspect that even a >striped XML format is too confusing (the team I work for had problems >with this, and they're bright people). > >Why? I think it's because the RDF model isn't obvious in the >serialisation. > >The XML infoset is palatable because it corresponds to what people see >when they read XML - i.e. a tree with attributes. >Unfortunately people don't see triples (or a graph) when looking at >RDF/XML - they see a tree, with additional nasty RDF syntax. > >I'm not sure what the solution is. Ideally we'd be pushing a simpler, >terse, more graph-friendly syntax (maybe a cut down version of >turtle). The problem of course is that most developers hearts and >minds are already committed to XML for data interchange. > >Maybe pushing turtle more is a good idea. What do people think? > >Cheers, > >Phil > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 23:12:35 UTC