In my experience constraining the rdf+XML syntax does work well in making the rdf more palatable for those wanting XML. However, also from real experience, suggesting consumers use XML tools does the consumer a dis-service.
Rdf is a graph, a web of relationships, which is what makes it less constraining than XML. XML only represents tree structures, a subset of graphs. Consuming the graph, and understanding it, gives you a model to work with that is far more useful and flexible. Rob Styles Talis On 9 Jun 2010, at 21:45, "Erik Hetzner" <ehetz...@gmail.com> wrote: > At Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:12:56 -0600, > Lee Passey wrote: >> >> On 6/8/2010 8:23 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> In my opinion, RDF is more constraining than XML, because it forces >>> the designer to think clearly about the underlying model, rather >>> than >>> presenting a lot of different metadata fields. >> >> Then I will leave it to you to explain to the W3C how the RDF >> specification failed to meet the design goal of "represent[ing] >> information in a minimally constraining, flexible way." > > I’ll see what I can do. :) > >> […] >> >> And if the graph doesn't have a schema I understand, I'm hosed; >> thus the >> value of constraints. If I know OL will always represent a person as >> foaf:person, then I can code for that. But if OL sometimes >> represents a >> person as foaf:person, and sometimes as dcterms:agent, and >> sometimes as >> rdg2:person, and sometimes as rdf:description and sometimes using >> some >> new vocabulary that has not yet been invented that a human being >> could >> recognize as conveying "personness" but not a computer algorithm, >> then I >> don't know how to deal with that. Of course I can ignore what I don't >> understand, but what happens if there is nothing left when I do? > > I agree that in order to use the data, one needs to be able to > understand the vocabulary that is used. > >>> The more >>> the merrier. If OL outputs FOAF& RDA,& it conforms to the >>> semantics >>> of both, great. If I know what FOAF is, I can use that, but if I >>> only >>> understand RDA, I can use that instead, and not worry about the >>> differences between the semantics of RDF& FOAF, because OL has done >>> that for me. >> >> Surely you're not suggesting that OL create RDF records that contain >> every possible representation of its data in every possible >> vocabulary... > > Sure, if they can do it. Why not? > >>> I really don’t see the problem. A graph can be trimmed >>> wherever you like. >> >> The problem is never a surfeit of data, it is always a paucity >> thereof. > > Agreed, which is why I said above that the more vocabularies > supported, the better, all other things being equal. > >>> For the record, XSLT is not very useful for dealing with RDF+XML, >>> unless one constrains (!) the syntax of RDF+XML. >> >> Precisely my point. Thus, OL should constrain its RDF/XML syntax to a >> limited vocabulary, and rely on XSLT to generate unconstrained >> vocabularies as needed, as the reverse is not possible. In setting >> those >> limits, it should start by trying to determine which vocabulary >> (ies) are >> most useful to its consumers and potential consumers. This is, so >> far, >> the issue that no one has addressed directly. > > Processing RDF+XML with XSLT is not made easier by constraining the > RDF vocabularies used, but by constraining the syntax of RDF+XML. See, > e.g., the RSS 1.0 spec. > > best, Erik > <ATT00001> > <ATT00002..txt> Please consider the environment before printing this email. Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/ shared innovation™ Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited. Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB. _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list Ol-tech@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-tech-unsubscr...@archive.org
