Re: [office-metadata] RDF/XML and XPath

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

Hi John,

On Feb 11, 2007, at 5:56 AM, John C Barstow wrote:

> I'm going to raise my head above water here to mention that the XPath
> problem is *precisely* why the TriX format[1] was invented.

But it's not standardized, so I think is a no go. Also, Dave Beckett -- 
who updated the 2004 RDF/XML spec and also wrote an alternative RDF XML 
syntax similar to TRiX -- has not come to such clear-cut conclusions on 
syntax.

> One of the core requirements was that the format be amenable to
> processing with XPath and XSLT, one which I think it meets admirably
> (incidentally supporting one of my pet features, named graphs).

I think if we recommend basic conventions (such as properties should be 
represented as elements) it will be friendly-enough to XSLT. It will 
certainly be much, MUCH friendlier than any arbitrary XML is, and so a 
big improvement on the current state of things.

I have already demonstrated a generic XSLT to convert all statements in 
a package to HTML.

> Bruce may be unaware of this, but one of the reasons RDF stumbled so
> badly when first introduced was the RDF/XML syntax.

I am, but I just don't agree with your analysis [1]. I think one major 
failing of how RDF has been implemented is that people confuse syntax 
and model.

But the more important issue that the specific problem here is not 
really syntax; it is display binding. Do we *require* using XPath 
(which depends on syntax) to do that, or use a mechanism more 
appropriate to the RDF model (and so independent of syntax)?

*That* is the question.

BTW, on named graphs, we've pretty much settled on using the manifest 
to achieve that.

Bruce

[1] See Dave Beckett's paper on comparing different syntaxes. His 
conclusion: "It has been shown that it is not trivial to make a clearly 
better syntax [then RDF/XML], that one syntax will not suit all 
purposes, and that there are both benefits and costs of pursuing 
multiple ways to write the same thing, especially when they are written 
with different audiences in mind."