- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:21:18 +0000
- To: "Brian Manley" <bmanley@granite.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:04:15 -0500 "Brian Manley" <bmanley@granite.com> wrote: > > All, > > Given the current discussion regarding RDF/XML serialization > alternatives, I was wondering why there doesn't seem to be more > interest in formats such as RXR, TriplesML or TriX. Each seems > reasonably sane to me. Is there some flaw in these proposed formats > that have prevented their adoption? Hard to say. I've been too busy to comment in the current thread but since I edited the RDF/XML refactored spec, created Turtle and RXR, and written on RDF syntaxes extensively, I think that what's missing is that nobody found them too compelling (unlike Turtle which has had several independent implementations). There is an existing general RDF/XML syntax that is roughly good enough and more importantly, supported by *all* the RDF tools. When people say they want a better syntax, in reality that means they want a more my-application-focused syntax. So they usually just make one (or already have one) and translate to/from RDF triples or to/from RDF/XML. In some future standardisation work I could see some just triples-in-XML like RXR etc. work as useful, but it would be for M2M as far too verbose for people - all the long URIs. Dave Further reading: A Brief History of RDF Serialization Formats, Oliver M. Bolzer http://www.fakeroot.net/sw/rdf-formats-20040717/ A retrospective on the development of the RDF/XML Revised Syntax, Dave Beckett http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/publications/researchreport/rr1017/report_html?ilrtyear=2003
Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 17:22:55 UTC