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

Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files

From: (wrong string) čius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:40:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35VmzBdR53ehMHRtjeWVNazHYtYDCDxzGLGqDTUc4qt+vi-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Cc: richard@light.demon.co.uk, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
JSON is not a silver bullet. By only providing JSON, you cut off
access for the whole XML toolchain.
My related post on HackerNews: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4417111

Martynas
graphity.org

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, William Waites <ww@styx.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> -w
>
>


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, William Waites <ww@styx.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> -w
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 12:40:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:46 UTC