Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on)

At 05:45 PM 5/31/00 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>On Wed, 31 May 2000, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>> Okay, so the RDF WG decided to use XML...
>> 
>> [Also, the RDF spec doesn't make a strong commitment to XML.  From the
>> Introduction:
>> RDF>It is also important to understand that this 
>> RDF>XML syntax is only one possible syntax for 
>> RDF>RDF and that alternate ways to represent 
>> RDF>the same RDF data model may emerge. 
>> ]
>
>Just wanted to respond to this aside for now; hopefully reply to the rest
>later. The RDF model & syntax specification says this for good reason: by
>making a clear distinction between the underlying RDF data model and the
>initial RDF-in-XML syntax we make room for new ways of interpreting
>various kinds of XML as RDF. Far from being a half-hearted commitment to
>XML, I read this as anticipating a number of developments that couldn't be
>specified in the RDF spec. 
>[...much good...]
>
>IMHO, RDF's contribution to the XML picture seems to be as a
>(partial) strategy for dealing with the enormous success of XML, by
>providing a common data interpretation strategy de-coupled from any
>particular XML syntax. When the RDF M&S spec takes care to
>distinguish RDF's data model from one particular syntax, it is 
>not through lack of enthusiasm for XML, but because this layering is 
>a practical way of coping with the heterogeneity of the Web (pre- and
>post- XML).

Thanks, Dan.  That makes things much clearer as far as intent.

It still leaves me wondering what the _requirements_ for an RDF syntax are,
though, and whether the layering proposals made here earlier can satisfy
them.  I suspect they can.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 18:13:54 UTC