Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomaticsystems
 At 7:14 PM -0800 11/17/02, Tim Bray wrote: >Shelley Powers wrote: > >>I think you're all focusing on the syntax when the issue really is the >>model. > >In fact, what I and others are claiming is that the syntax is >getting in the way of peoples' learning and liking the model. You >are on the record, repeatedly, that you disagree; so be it. I think >history is against you (cf the WWW). > >>If we were to create an example RDF document using Tim's quickly >>put together demonstration (note that Tim only put RPV together in an >>evening and only meant it as a demonstration, see >>http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/000661.htm#comment3032) XML and the >>existing RDF/XML and bring in a naive user, the person would have just >>as much problem with Tim's syntax as he or she would with RDF/XML. > >I disagree entirely. The design goal of RPV is precisely that a >human who knows qualitatively that RDF is a model based on >resource/property/value triples, and knows very little more, can >look at RPV and figure out what's going on and start either >hand-authoring it or (more likely) generating it with a perl script >or PHP or ASB or whatever their favorite tool is, and have a very >high chance of getting it right first time. Without having to read >any *any* W3C recommmendations. How can that not be important? Tim, I think then you need to provide test cases for your syntax. In fact, can you translate the RDF/XML test cases into your syntax? They do represent instantiations of model constructs, represented in RDF/XML. This means they should be able to map equally well over to your syntax. Question: Why generate it with a script? I thought your thing was human readability and writing? >Anyhow, as noted, you disagree with this, in which case RPV is a >pointless distraction from the Real Work of convincing people to put >up with the ugliness of RDF/XML syntax because it's Good For Them. >Who konws, it might work eventually; but I think it would be easier >if the syntax was easier. I'll take working over pretty, but if you can prove your syntax handles all aspects of the RDF model, I'd be content. I might not use it myself, but would be willing to point people to it as a working, simplified, alternative. >BTW I went back and looked at RPV again and I'm pretty sure that I >could use it to do all the RDF work I've ever done. I think you'd >probably need one more element <RPV> to group your assertions and to >serve as the root if you wanted to have an all-RPV resource. Ouch - >just increased the element-type headcount by 50%. How do you handle a RDF stripe? node-arc-node-arc? Do you create a property that's a resource and then define the resource elsewhere? Or do you nest it? Also, how do you handle containers? These aren't RDF/XML constructs -- these are RDF model constructs. They would need to map to your syntax. I'm not sure how to do this, unambiguously from your document. Again, the test cases would be a good place to start, and then let's grab some real world RDF/XML and try it. >So the challenge remains. There is existence proof of a syntax >which is XML, which unambiguously encodes resource/property/value >triples, and which anyone can easily read. Are you *really* sure >the Semantic Web doesn't need something like this to help get off >the ground? Really? -Tim If you can prove that the syntax meets the needs of the model, and if people can read what's happening without recourse to the model, cool. As I said, I think the next step is to take some actual RDF/XML and try it out in your syntax. For instance, I'll take my Post Content application RDF/XML vocabulary and see if I can translate it into your syntax. However, first I do need answers to the two questions I posed in this note -- how do you handle a stripe (nested arc-node-arc-node), and how do you handle a collection? Also, have you submitted it to the RDF working group? I would think that they would listen to you. If it tests out and works, I would think that they would see about including it in the spec with this release. I've always found them to be quite responsive, and I wouldn't have the clout you would. In fact, I can't help thinking that if this quiets most of the critics, they'd be quite happy to include it. And as a general note: Do I think RDF and RDF/XML are perfect? Nope. No such thing as perfect, anywhere. I've seen people raise some very good arguments, and give some very good specifics about what needs improvement. But, as I have also stated, I would rather see the RDF spec released for work now, and in parallel, start a new effort for a simplified syntax that maps to the old complicated syntax, then scrap it all and start over from the beginning. Because if we start over, I guarantee we'll only be right back here where we're at in 3 years. 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
|
|||||||||
