W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:23:13 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <20130206.122313.411506240.ww@styx.org>
To: richard@light.demon.co.uk
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:45:10 +0000, Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk> said:

    > In a web development context, JSON would probably come second
    > for me as a practical proposition, in that it ties in nicely
    > with widely-supported javascript utilities.

If it were up to me, XML with all the pointy brackets that make my
eyes bleed would be deprecated everywhere. Most or all modern
programming languages have good support for JSON, the web browsers do
natively as well, and it's much easier to work with since it mostly
maps directly to built-in datatypes.

    > To me, Turtle is symptomatic of a world in which people are
    > still writing far too many Linked Data examples and resources by
    > hand, and want something that is easier to hand-write than
    > RDF/XML.  I don't really see how that fits in with the promotion
    > of the idea of machine-processible web-based data.

Kind of agree. Turtle is a relic of trying to make a machine readable
quasi-prose representation of data, which is suitable for both
machines and people. But it's not general enough -- you can only use
it to write RDF, which means you need specialised tools. It's
saddening because (especially with some of the N3 enhancements) it's
quite an elegant approach.

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 12:23:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:29 UTC