- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:53 +0100
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thursday, March 18, 2004, 6:01:14 AM, Tim wrote: TB> On Mar 17, 2004, at 4:34 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: >> As some of you have probably heard me state too often: it's exactly >> this >> tension between two interesting architectures, both of which we are >> promoting to our users at about the same time, that most concerns me >> about >> the coexistence between XML and RDF. TB> As I've said, I think that XML makes handy plumbing for serializing RDF TB> triples. I think, however, that the existing RDF/XML syntax TB> aggressively obfuscates the underlying graph to the point that it's a TB> serious deadweight around RDF's neck. This is to hide it from HTML renderers. TB> I've on a number of occasions TB> proposed a brutally minimalit XML syntax for RDf with only three TB> elements: resource, property, and value. TB> I agree 100% with Dan that XML's native tree/sequence data structure is TB> entirely a red herring for RDF. -Tim Although XML can be used for 'database dump' structures where all the children of the root are identical. So RDF triple resource property value triple resource property value Four elements, entirely regular. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 04:36:01 UTC