On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:11:39 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 21:32 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:05:18PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > nonono :) I think metadata outside the plugin is without a doubt the > > > right way to go. I meant I'm just not a huge fan of the particular > > > syntax of this Turtle stuff (as opposed to normal well-formed XML). > > > Mostly because it means we need special tools and who knows what > > > libraries to deal with it. > > > > you cant usefully read RDF/XML with just an XML parser anyway. It's quite > > a lot of work to transform from the XML tree to the RDF graph. > > > > But yes, Turtle support is less widespeard than RDF/XML, but there are > > still Free/Open parsers for every language I can think of (C(++), perl, > > java, python, ruby, javascript, etc.) > > Speaking as a general developer, I'd much rather you just used plain > XML. (Pretty much as you have now, in fact.)
The current system is RDF/XML, not vanlla XML, you cant parse it usefully with stock XML parsers. XML is not very easy to extend without breaking other peoples tools. > Turtle isn't a standard, is aimed at much more general problem areas, > and will just force people to read more docs and install more packages. > It might be a bit nicer for the person writing the plugin file, but that > isn't that much work. (Or does turtle include some essential feature?) Turtle only missed being a standard months ago becasue of a wierd patent problem with a well-known company that shall be nameless. It will be a standard very soon. Future changes should not have to break back-compatibility. We only need to do it now to remove some old stuff that doesn't work very well. - Steve
