Re: Default RDF serialization

I strongly agree as well with these points.  The only reason RDF/XML was 
the only required serialization the member submission is it was the only 
W3C Recommendation and we attempted to only reference "official" 
standards.  Since this appears to be changing within W3C, then this 
limitation no longer exists.  There was no technical reason, the 
preference would be Turtle.  There is some consideration in the amount of 
broad support for the serializations and therefore RDF/XML had a little 
appeal but that is perhaps taking a too narrow view without the desire to 
move things in right direction.

I think you may have underestimated the problem you identified in (d) as 
this is something that I deal with on a fairly regular basis.

My preference order for RDF serialization formats would be:
1) Turtle  (minimal requirement)
2) JSON-LD
3) RDF/XML


Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net

David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote on 08/23/2012 10:08:05 AM:

> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 08/23/2012 10:10 AM
> Subject: Default RDF serialization
> 
> FWIW, if the LD profile is going to recommend one RDF serialization as
> the default for RDF, I would argue strongly that it should be Turtle
> instead of RDF/XML, because:
> 
>  (a) Turtle is far more human friendly to read;
>  (b) RDF/XML is not XML Schema friendly; 
>  (c) RDF/XML has XML-based restrictions (such as prohibiting local names
> that start with a digit) that make certain RDF difficult to represent;
>  (d) RDF/XML has had a history of misleading developers who are familiar
> with XML (but not RDF) into thinking that RDF is just a kind of XML.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 14:20:34 UTC