Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDF and the new releases
 Shelley Powers wrote: > If people wanted simple and to more easily view the tuples, there was > NTriples all along. You can't get more basic and more simplified than > Ntriples. *sigh* 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? > Yeah, but who is to say that his new approach would have been better? We can > work and work and work a spec until we're blue in the face and not find a > perfect solution. People learn to work the situation, or they learn to > automate it -- i.e. autoconf, automake, and libtool. 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. > Tim, we need the WG to finish. We have been waiting over a year for them to > finish. 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. > 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). Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.com 
|
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
|
|||||||||
