[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RDF and the new releases

• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: RDF and the new releases
• From: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@b...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:28:45 -0600
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3DD522DD.8010807@t...>

> I'd go further.  I think the current RDF/XML syntax is so B.A.D. (broken
> as designed) that it has seriously got in the way of people being
> open-minded about RDF.  I'm baffled why the RDF working group has been
> forbidden to work on replacing that syntax. -Tim
>
>

I came on very strong in my last response and for that I apologize. We can
debate these issues without getting heated.

I think, though, that our time would be most productively spent on perhaps
coming up with approaches that allow people to work with RDF without having
ot use RDF/XML if they dislike it so, to user alternative serialization
formats ro alternative technology implementations and still be compatible
with the folks that would prefer using the formalized RDF/XML serialization
technique. For instance, if your simplified RDF/XML meets all of the needs
of the model, then lets create a transform for it (as exists with Ntriples
and RDF/XML) and provide this for people's use. That is an effective
alternative, wouldn't you say?

Let's accept that RDF/XML will release, as is, and work from there.

Shelley

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RDF and the new releases
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
  • RE: RDF and the new releases
    • From: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@b...>

• References:
  • Re: RDF and the new releases
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
• Next by Date: RE: RDF and the new releases
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF and the new releases
• Next by thread: RE: RDF and the new releases
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread