Proposed Group: RDF-XML Community Group
The RDF-XML Community Group has been proposed by Christian Dirschl:
The goal of this group is to 1) identify application areas in which the combined processing of XML and RDF data and tooling is beneficial; 2) identify issues that hinder the joint usage of the two technology stacks 3) formulate best practices to resolve the issues are propose standardization topics. The goal does not only take into account the data representation formats XML and RDF, but all related technologies (e.g. for XML: XSLT, XQuery; for RDF: RDF Schema, SPARQL) and selected XML (e.g. OData) or RDF vocabularies. The group should be driven by needs of industries that already deploy one or both technology stacks. In exceptional cases this can also cover adjacent technologies like Json with respect to the topics covered in this group. The outcome should focus not on a big architecture of how to work with XML and RDF, but on small building blocks (as best practices or standardization topics) that can be re-used across industries and application scenarios.
You are invited to support the creation of this group. Once the group has a total of five supporters, it will be launched and people can join to begin work. In order to support the group, you will need a W3C account.
Once launched, the group will no longer be listed as “proposed”; it will be in the list of current groups.
If you believe that there is an issue with this group that requires the attention of the W3C staff, please send us email on site-comments@w3.org
Thank you,
W3C Community Development Team
Please don’t forget RDFa, which was exactly designed for this purpose, and is supported in many existing XML-based systems (e.g. ODF).
RDFa is definitely in scope, as one simple best practice to recommend.
Please change the name – it is very confusing with RDF-XML serialisation and will affect google searches etc.
A sensible and short WG name can be: “XML and RDF” WG or XML&RDF WG etc.
Yes, please change the name, very easy to confuse with RDF/XML.
I’ve just supported the creation of this (exciting) new CG, with 2 comments:
1/ like others I would STRONGLY recommend to rename it (I would have never got a look at it, if it wasn’t for Andy who suggested the name was confusing, as I am not interested in 2016 in RDF/XML, the rec.)
2/ “In exceptional cases this can also cover adjacent technologies like Json”. In my humble opinion JSON could (should?) be an integral part of the initiative.
What about something like “RDF integration”, “RDFi”, “Data integration”, “Universal Data Model”, “Data NG”…?
See a new proposal for the name here:
https://twitter.com/fsasaki/status/737935882255273984
Also, there is this suggestion to change the description
“In exceptional cases this can also cover adjacent technologies like Json with respect to the topics covered in this group.”
>
„This will also cover adjacent technologies like Json with respect to the topics covered in this group.”
Thanks for adapting the description!
Another name suggestion from fgeorges
https://twitter.com/fgeorges/status/737947163922157568
“RAXIj” (small “j” for “and a bit of JSON”)
Proposal has been updated, see
https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#rdf-xml
JSON is embraced in the text. I’ll check with Christian if we can go ahead.