|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[Recent Entries]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Why not RDF rather than RSS for the Web of Data? -was Some
Michael Champion wrote:
> On 4/25/05, Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...> wrote:
>
>>. However you could replace the
>>Atom above with RDF1.0 and let the entire feed pass straight through to
>>the RDF aware layer - nothing would break. This kind of flexibility is
>>worth keeping in mind the next time someone here dings RDF because it
>>can't describe Fahrenheit to Celsius conversions. It ain't pretty, but
>>it does have interesting properties, Turing completeness not being among
>>them.
>
>
> I don't doubt that RDF logically could meet the use cases Bosworth was
> talking about, nor do I doubt that XQuery views of diverse data
> sources logically could meet those requirements. The question is
> whether they have those "S" attributes (simplicity, sloppiness,
> standardization, scalability) he asserts are necessary to thrive on
> the Web.
Oh sure, he's said before (more or less) that RDF doesn't have the
characteristics needed for web adoption. That's the world where XML
well-formedness is a nice to have. On the other hand, compared to the
kind of work that goes in relational database designs for enterprises,
RDF graphs counts as slop - I'll try to demonstrate that here.
> I don't really care which "wins" -- something RSS-like or something
> RDF-like -- to become the data format for the Web of Data (if such a
> thing ever exists). Both are at XML-ish. I believe Bosworth's
> analysis enough to bet on RSS, if I had to make a prediction:
> - It has proved simpler to actually use by ordinary mortals
> - The RSS culture and toolset is tolerant of error, ambiguity, and
> other human characteristics
> - RSS people can't agree on a formal standard but it is ubiquitous and
> interoperable in practice
> - Its growth curve indicates that it scales to the Web and leverages
> HTTP nicely.
>
> I don't think any of these can be said about RDF. Simplicity (for
> users), sloppiness (tolerance of error), and standardization (in the
> sense of ubiquity) are just not among RDF's virtues. I don't know
> about scalability one way or the other, and its relationship with HTTP
> seems a bit rocky.
That depends. Simplicity, sure, but not tolerance of error. RDF-aware
systems are highly tolerant of absent or unexpected data; arguably they
go too far in that respect - it becomes a bit of free for all. To
highlight this, let's look at the stuff that gets pulled out of the Atom
example I sent earlier, and sent to said 'RDF layer':
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:iam="http://www.reach.ie/iams/envelope/"
xmlns:event="http://www.reach.ie/iams/event/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<event:Event>
<event:EventSourceTime/>
<event:EventSource rdf:resource=""/>
<event:EventLevel rdf:resource=""/>
<event:EventDescription/>
<event:EventObject rdf:resource="" rdf:type=""/>
</event:Event>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
<iam:Version/>
<iam:MessageType rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:MessageRole rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:MessageSource rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:EnvelopeType rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:MessageSourceID/>
<iam:MessageDestination rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:CorrelationID rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:MessageID rdf:resource=""/>
<iam:SequenceNo/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
It's a much less prim technology that people suggest. The following
scenarios will work:
- send just one of those,
- a thousand of those.
- just the event:* stuff
- just the iam:* stuff
- part of the event:* data
- part of the iam:* data
- new iam:* stuff
- new event:* stuff
- dc:* stuff in either event:* or iams:* or both.
- *:* stuff in either event:* or iams:* or both.
- a FOAF block, every now and then
- RSS1.0 outside the RDF, you can send the lot right through
- logging a software upgrade:
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:event="http://www.reach.ie/iams/event/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:doap="http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap#">
<event:Event>
<event:EventSourceTime/>
<event:EventSource rdf:resource=""/>
<event:EventLevel rdf:resource=""/>
<event:EventDescription/>
<event:EventObject rdf:resource="urn:XXX" rdf:type=""/>
</event:Event>
<doap:Project rdf:about="urn:XXX" rdf:type="urn:hmm...upgrades">
<doap:release>
<doap:Version>
<doap:name>agent.jar</doap:name>
<doap:revision>1.1.1</doap:revision>
</doap:Version>
</doap:release>
</doap:Project>
</rdf:RDF>
No surprise then to find RDF diehards looking at mU/mI processing
models, concepts like 'foreign markup', or non-optional typing, @rel,
and shaking their heads.
cheers
Bill
|
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
| RSS 2.0 |
 |
| Atom 0.3 |
 |
| |
Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats,
enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.
|
Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website.
they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please
click here.
|
|
Cart
