-
Website
http://phildawes.net/blog/ -
Original page
http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2005/01/07/time-to-deprecate-rdfxml/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
4 comments · 4 points
-
phildawes
5 comments · 1 points
-
Dominic Sayers
1 comment · 1 points
-
David W.
2 comments · 1 points
-
ryantm
1 comment · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Phil Dawes Stuff >> Idea for a global interpreter lock optimized for low contention
2 weeks ago · 3 comments
-
Phil Dawes Stuff >> Idea for a global interpreter lock optimized for low contention
for xml to triples - what about a new transformation reference with xslt in the background? something along < ?rdf-transformation type="text/xsl" href="http://example.org/stylesheet"?>
regards, Michael
Thanks for the comments - I agree that trix/rxr aren't likely to become success stories in the XML world. I was really thinking of the times when some application/agent wants to interchange some RDF within an XML document.
RDF/XML is a lot harder to parse than trix/rxr, and I suppose that's the appeal for me. Although thinking about it, that's not a good argument to replace rdf/xml as the defacto xml choice for machines talking to each other, since there's only a small number (few 10s) of implementations anyway.
I'm not keen on using XSLT for xml to triples. The primary reason is because XSLT is complicated, and I'm assuming you'd be using the XSLT to tranform XML into RDF/XML to import it.
Also, I suspect that it'll be easier to transform xml directly into triples given the right toys. This is a hunch though.
The bottom line is one of numbers - there are a small number of RDF implementations, and there are a small number of important web based xml dialects. There are in contrast so many xml users out there that I think it would be much easier to supply transforms, than to try and convince XML people to use a complex RDF serialisation format in its place. (Esp when it doesnt off them much value, as is the case at present).
Cheers,
Phil