L
Leeh
I'm new to the world of RDF and RDF/XML so pardon my naive question:
I understand that the "real" RDF model is the conceptual network of
nodes (Subjects and Objects) connected by predicate arcs; and that the
official way to serialize the graph is to use the RDF/XML specification.
So far so good; but N3 and/or N-Triple notations are also used, and it
sure seems to me that N3 is "iso-morphic" to the graph; i.e. The
triples (properly constructed) represent the graph, the whole graph and
nothing but the graph.
And now the question:
If we need to express the graph model in an XML -ish form, why wouldnt
it be easier, simpler, less fattening, whatever, to start with the the
triples thus:
<tripleSet>
<triple>
<subject>http://mydomain.com/myStuff/Thing42.doc</subject>
<predicate>http://mydomain.com/myvocabulary#title</predicate>
<object>Sitting On A Fence</object>
</triple>
...
etc for all the known triples
</tripleSet>
But as far as I can tell, no one has done or proposed such a thing. Has
it got some sort of fatal flaw, conceptual or practical, that I'm
looking right past?
What makes RDF/XML , which to my inexperienced eye seems a bit clunky in
comparison, the preferred notation over N3 or an xml-ized version of N3 ?
I understand that the "real" RDF model is the conceptual network of
nodes (Subjects and Objects) connected by predicate arcs; and that the
official way to serialize the graph is to use the RDF/XML specification.
So far so good; but N3 and/or N-Triple notations are also used, and it
sure seems to me that N3 is "iso-morphic" to the graph; i.e. The
triples (properly constructed) represent the graph, the whole graph and
nothing but the graph.
And now the question:
If we need to express the graph model in an XML -ish form, why wouldnt
it be easier, simpler, less fattening, whatever, to start with the the
triples thus:
<tripleSet>
<triple>
<subject>http://mydomain.com/myStuff/Thing42.doc</subject>
<predicate>http://mydomain.com/myvocabulary#title</predicate>
<object>Sitting On A Fence</object>
</triple>
...
etc for all the known triples
</tripleSet>
But as far as I can tell, no one has done or proposed such a thing. Has
it got some sort of fatal flaw, conceptual or practical, that I'm
looking right past?
What makes RDF/XML , which to my inexperienced eye seems a bit clunky in
comparison, the preferred notation over N3 or an xml-ized version of N3 ?