[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF vs. EAR

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <duane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:56:09 -0800
Message-id: <CB02A47A.AB78%duane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 11-12-05 3:05 PM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (01)

>But they yielded to political pressure to use XML, which is a fine
>But when you try to mix the notation for annotating documents. >graph
>representation with document annotation, pointer following,
>and a host of other issues, the graph is lost in the mush.  When
>you encode that mush in a bloated syntax, you get a disaster.    (02)

DN:  I have worked with XML for a lot of years and find that it too is
misunderstood.  I usually agree with you John but I want to note that to
me, XML is an "expression" of data.  This can be metadata, abstract
models, UML or just about any data imaginable.  XML also has nothing to do
with semantics which confuses a lot of people when they see RDF/XML. Yes -
XML is verbose/terse and that is part of why so many developers and
architects like me love XML.  We don't recommend using XML as an
interchange format all the time (bad).  Certainly when we build mobile
apps for clients we don't recommend using XML-SOAP based web services
unless no alternative is available.    (03)

I think that your assertion that Tim did it for political pressure is also
somewhat off though.  I cannot speak for him but I have worked in the W3C
before and they encourage re-use of existing standards.  The W3C has
standardized a number of metadata formats and other data expressions in
XML.  XSLT, SML Schema etc all come from the same basic model (XML
Infoset).  What is notable about RDF is that XML is not tightly coupled to
RDF.  In fact, the XML expression of XML is a separate piece of work and
only one of the several recommendations in the RDF suite.    (04)

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/    (05)

If you go to the formal authoritative SME on the suite of RDF
recommendations, the syntax (XML expression) is clearly decoupled from the
Semantics of RDF:    (06)

http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/rdf#w3c_all    (07)

One thing I am curious to know about is whether anyone else has
implemented RDF in a non-XML interchange format?  If so, what has been the
value?  I have seen one example of it being rendered in a 2D drawing in
the RDF Primer itself
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#figure1) but this
would obviously not be a useable candidate for machine to machine transfer
of knowledge.    (08)

Open Questions:    (09)

Is there anything that precludes someone from expressing RDF is a format
such as JSON?
If so, has anyone doe such?
What were the reasons for not using XML.  Specific numbers on things like
parse size, readability, document size etc. would be good to know.    (010)

Duane    (011)

________________________________________    (012)

Principal Data Architect &
Adobe LiveCycle ES Consultant Services
Blog | http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter | @duanechaos    (013)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>