[rdfweb-dev] RDF all the way on XML.com
Libby.Miller at bristol.ac.uk
Fri Aug 22 11:05:41 UTC 2003
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Jonathan Greensted wrote:
> This is an excellent post and has helped me understand more clearly.
> I think the XML people may actually prefer the <R/> and <PV/> syntax if it
> meant they could use their regular tools.
I think this is a real issue. Investigating other syntaxes is fine, but
they won't be W3C 'official' within the forseeable future...
> I prefer the <Person/> approach personally but that's largely irrelevant
> because I'm still a member of the "don't understand club"! (I'm hoping for
> my RDF badge soon.)
> So to whether this is the correct list of not well, it's called rdfweb-dev
> and we are discussing developments using RDF on the Web so if this is
> inappropriate the list should be renamed.
> Is this list purely focused on FOAF then?
yeah I think this is causing some confusion. The initial project was
called rdfweb (hence the main site was on http://rdfweb.org/foaf, now at
http://www.foaf-project.org). The FOAF bit captured people's
imagination, and became the focus and name for the work, so this list
would now be better called foaf-dev or something. Maybe there's a case
for having more than one list. I'll have a chat with danbri, see what
he reckons, and also whether we can get searching of the list working.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org
> [mailto:rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org] On Behalf Of Libby Miller
> Sent: 22 August 2003 11:38
> To: Victor Lindesay
> Cc: rdfweb-dev
> <R r="http://monkeyfist.com/" id="r1">
> <PV p="http://foo.com/#Publisher">Monkeyfist Collective</PV>
> actually I find that rather hard to read :)
> I can certainly imagine that if that had been chosen as an xml syntax
> there would still have been complaints; although it is clearer about the
> underlying model which might have speeded up understanding of RDF, it
> doesn't 'look like XML' in that it doesn't represent the relationshops
> between things in an xml-y way:
> <mbox rdf:resource="mailto:libby.miller at bristol.ac.uk"/>
> <R id="r1">
> <PV p="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type"
> v="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource" />
> <PV p="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name">Libby</PV>
> <PV p="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox"
> v="mailto:libby.miller at bristol.ac.uk" />
> See what I mean? think XML people would like the latter any more than
> the former?
> I think the underlying issue is that it's hard to encode a graph in a
> tree syntax, since trees are a subset of graphs and not the other way
> At this stage however, it's not possible to change the syntax, unless
> the RDF working group is reformed with a different remit. In its current
> incarnation it was created to improve what was already there, and
> explicitly not to create a new syntax. This was because people and tools
> are now (and were then) using RDF, and to pull the rug out from under
> their feet was thought to be the wrong thing to do.
> There is one real problem I can see with the syntax, which is that you
> can't process arbitrary RDF with some generic XML tools, such as XSLT.
> There are several efforts in progress to get various XML tools talking
> to RDF so that this issue is minimised. My favourite is to coopt the
> XPath syntax so that it can be interpretted to navigate the structure of
> RDF documents, and then be used in XSLT and XQuery. There have also been
> some discussions about processing RDF queries using XQuery.
> Here is some work in progress along these lines:
> Dave's right in that www-rdf-interest at w3.org
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/, although W3C is
> having trouble with it's mailing lists at the moment due to the SoBig.F)
> would be a better forum for these discussions; it's important to have
> the history of these issues explained, but this is more of an
> application-orientated list, so it's a bit distracting to get sucked
> into discussions about the underlying technology (especially when these
> discussions have happened many times before elsewhere).
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Victor Lindesay wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett at bristol.ac.uk]
> > > And syntax is just an endless discussion that I'm not going
> > > into myself.
> > I would have thought that one of the principle authors of RDF / XML
> > syntax (and great respect to you for that Dave) could give some reasons
> > why RDF / XML is complicated and why a simpler alternative has not been
> > pursued.
> > What ever happened to that RPV idea that Tim Bray proposed?
> > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/20/rpv.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > rdfweb-dev mailing list
> > rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> > wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> > http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
More information about the foaf-dev