Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Rick JELLIFFE wrote: > Dan Brickley wrote: > > Nobody is considering a rewrite of the model, but there is > > widespread concern that the current [XML] syntax is sub-optimal, > > and holding back progress with RDF generally. I'll hazard the guess that the Formal Grammar section, more than anything else, is what could be driving people away in droves;) > I think the RDF people have treated XML as a serialization syntax, > where > RDF application > -> XML (standard, serialization) > -> RDF appplication > > Hence, a flat format that doesnt fit in with much else. I think it's a bit worse than that. What passes for the serialization scheme is adhockery all the way. (For instance, if there were a "standard" XML serialization of labelled digraphs - not that hard to devise - a properly articulated RDF => LDG mapping/realization could have automatically determined the XML form. Basically, the XML-ized form, as it stands, doesn't cohere "intuitively".) > Instead, a more useful model for getting a critical mass of RDF > applications would have been: > existing non-RDF application > -> XML > -> RDF application > -> XML > -> non-RDF application > > This model would have lead to an attribute-based syntax (e.g. > using ISO "attribute forms") to allow RDF annotations on any > existing syntax. Oh dear... You're trying to bring in "officially" proscribed ideas... anathema... (More potshots on the way, now ...?;)) > RDF should be an "architecture" not a "framework". RDF should > have a DTD Isn't the doctrine - think the right think - from 50000 ft to kill off DTDs? Arjun *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html ***************************************************************************
|
