Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDF and the new releases
 > >NTriples is a syntax defined by RDF Core for writing test cases last >year. It has not always been around, as you claim. And RDF core does >not recommend the use of NTriples over RDF/XML as an interchange. > >Now, why would a working group see fit to define a entirely new >syntax for tests cases when it alrady had a syntax? Sorry -- N3 if you prefer. > > > >Or a) throw it out and invent a better tool as the Java world is >doing with Ant, b) use langauges that don't require a make. > >Indeed, it took about twenty years for the UNIX community to figure >out how to use make properly. I'm pretty sure the syntax wasn't >helping any. make file characteristics was never the issue as much as libraries and idiosyncracies and compatibility issues across Unix platforms. However, this is off-topic and not worth pursuing. > >>h. We need something stable that we can work with. We do NOT need to >>start all over again. I would pack it in at that point. I really would. > >Gosh. I though RDF was supposed to get us out this morass of >ill-defined, ill-advised, non-interoperable technology. Much of >which is the way it is becuase it had to be done yesterday, or the >body politic in question ran out of steam. I don't expect RDF to add >to that. RDF is nearly five years old at this point- another year >won't hurt any. Another year won't help Bill. And another year probably won't result in a specification that will please all the critics. Or half the critics. > >>Have to disagree with you on this. You don't just throw everything out, say, >>oh so sorry and start again. Not really. If the group formalizes the one >>form of RDF/XML, based on considerable comments, testing, and discussion -- >>then can't we accept that and work alternatives? Or use Ntriples? Or use >>XSLT to transform? Or APIs? Isn't that a better approach then to continously >>scrap where we are to start all over...again? > >Scrap what exactly? RDF/XML is a serialization for RDF - it's not >RDF. Since syntax matters, all most people are asking for is a >better syntax. It's not like anyone here is asking for sweeping >changes in the RDF Model (with the exception perhaps of how literals >are to be treated). Agree -- RDF is a model while RDF/XML is just a serialization. I don't believe all of the issues are related to just the syntax, though most in this list would, naturally. I'm curious, Bill -- do you have a better syntax in mind? Exactly what aspects of RDF/XML do you dislike? Can you provide details, or links to writings that provide details of your main objections? Shelley 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
