Re: Lack of RDF/XML examples in new standards

2008/11/12 Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>

>
> Stephen Bounds wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a mistake.  One of the best things about the Core
> > Guide and Vocabulary Spec was that they have an extensive set of
> > RDF/XML examples which, let's face it, form the vast bulk of
> > implemented RDF systems.
>
> Johannes Busse wrote:
> >
>
>> I agree with Stephen. From an (ontology engineering) *practitioner* point
>> of view XML still is *the* data exchange format today. Even if N3 or turtle
>> are supposed to me more reader friendly I prefer RDF/XML because I can paste
>> the examples directly into all my systems. And because of that it is the
>> format I do understand best. :-)
>>
>
> RDF/XML is one of the main reasons why adoption of RDF took so long. There
> are dozens of ways to encode the same graph in RDF/XML. Without a full
> specialized parser you are lost. RDF/XML might be more known and it *looks*
> more easy but it confuses more then it helps. RDF is a graph, XML is a tree.
> If you mix both it can only get worse. Either you don't touch it by hand but
> write and parse it with serious programming libraries - then the encoding is
> irrelevant anyway. Or you try to read, parse, and write it on your own and
> you will introduce bugs in your application and wrong conceptions in your
> minds.


I use two different methods of encoding RDF into XML, and both of them are
very simple IMO and I am not introducing bugs or wrong conceptions as far as
I know. I think it is still easier to understand than the overly compact N3
or the very verbose NTriples. with respect to the idea of graphs existing
with nodes.

I disagree that RDF/XML was the reason RDF hasn't been widely adopted btw. I
view the popular conception that you had to use OWL to use RDF as the main
reason ;)

Another two cents ;)

Peter