Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: David Megginson <david@m...> | .... the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so | it's hard to know what to do. In our application we (a) subset the RDF model (leaving out URI pattern, for example) and (b) employ a simplified (non-striped) syntax. So I suppose its not really RDF anymore. What our application retains is (i) an interpretation of the *stated* RDF model and (ii) the RDF and RDF schema vocabulary. BTW, our experimental syntax uses qnames rather than URI's for references. I am wondering if the way forward might be to give up on a single, standard syntax for all RDF serialization. Instead, create a language that specifies application-specific mappings between RDF and XML. (I think there was a hint of this in the Cambridge Communiqué.) For our part, we have experimented with adapting XSL for translating in the RDF->XML direction. A true solution would need to declare a bi-directional mapping. This approach concedes that people really want to invent application-specific XML languages. The idea is to provide a framework for interoperation that, admittedly, would require the application's RDF mappings to be available as well as the XML documents. Regards, Arnold deVos Langdale Consultants adv@l... *************************************************************************** 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 ***************************************************************************
|
