Comments on: Eve’n'more

By: darcusblog » Blog Archive » XML and RDF

darcusblog » Blog Archive » XML and RDF — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:52:53 +0000

[...] Certainly the RDF world could look at simplifying the XML syntax, but I agree with Dan Brickley that an even more important goal is continuing the evolution of RDF tools. If hot application environments like Ruby Rails had RDF support that mirrored its current SQL-based ActiveRecord, then that will do more to encourage uptake of RDF than anything done with standards documents. [...]

By: Danny Ayers, Raw Blog : » Great Expectations

Danny Ayers, Raw Blog : » Great Expectations — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:04:18 +0000

[...] Issues with RDF/XML have featured in discussion around the RDF watercooler this week, with iand offering 12 different versions of the same teensy bit of RDF, and danbri offering more. [...]

By: shellac

shellac — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:38:16 +0000

Swallow my example, will you?

-%gt;

By: shellac

shellac — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:35:45 +0000

Some random comments:

The one issue I have with syntactic profiles is controlling the serialisation, which can be fiddly (otherwise it’s a fine choice).

My suspicion is that when people are talking about issues with rdf/xml, they are specifically talking about xslt and rdf/xml. People like xslt (with good reason) and want to use it for everything. It’s probably worth
capturing some of the discussion about transforming rdf in the ESW wiki (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2005Sep/0048.html ), which might help them out.

I could summarise that as: sparql will help a great deal.

One final random thought (and personal bugbear): if rdf/xml had a way to write properties without qnames, eg:

Then you could have and rdf/xml normal form which:

1. Used only the rdf namespace.
2. Had a (useful) xml schema.
3. Only varied in order.

Much like trix et al. I don’t want to write it, but if people want that kind of thing…