Myk Melez myk at
Wed Apr 16 13:48:56 UTC 2003

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Jason Corbett wrote:
>> The different interfaces look ok, but the only one implimented in all 
>> the spots is html.  Unfortunately bug_list (template list/list) has 
>> html, csv, and rdf.  show_bug (template bug/show) has xml, and html.  
>> It would be a little easier if say rdf or xml were supported on both 
>> of those pages.  
> rdf is xml. Right tool for the right job - RDF is an XML-based 
> language particularly suitable for bug lists and other tabular data. 
> For individual bugs, we already had an XML schema, so we used that.

In particular, RDF is good for expressing relationships between bugs and 
bug lists.

> A bug as RDF doesn't make all that much sense; a buglist as XML is 
> something we already have - inventing a new schema won't solve anything.

Actually bug reports as RDF do make some sense as a complement to RDF 
bug lists.  RDF was built to support the aggregation of multiple files 
(or data sources) into a single data structure (specifically, a graph in 
the mathematical sense of the term), and RDF-savvy parsers can take 
advantage of that support to merge RDF bug lists with RDF bug reports in 
ways that aren't possible with RDF bug lists and some generic XML format.

Bug lists as XML are less likely to be useful, since the RDF version of 
bug lists is standard XML and can be parsed and manipulated by generic 
XML parsers just as easily as any other XML format.  Still, there's 
benefit to being able to reuse parsing code for both bug reports and bug 
lists, so we should strive to implement an RDF version of bug reports 
that third-party applications can use in lieu of the current XML format.


More information about the developers mailing list