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

Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:52:33 -0500
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: chris@codex.net.au, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1360162353.2325.67251.camel@dbooth-laptop>
My view:

On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 11:59 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
[ . . . ]

> Do I have to pass the message to adopters : publish RDF in Turtle,
> it's a very cool an simple syntax (oh but BTW don't forget to add HTML
> documentation, and also RDF/XML, . . . .

Please promote Turtle and actively discourage RDF/XML.  Turtle is now
far enough along in its uptake and tooling to displace RDF/XML as a
common denominator format for RDF, and here is real harm in doing
anything that promotes RDF/XML, as: (a) RDF/XML is much harder for
humans to read; and (b) RDF/XML misleads people into thinking that RDF
is a form of XML.  I and others have many times seen people fall into
the trap of thinking that they can use familiar XML approaches to RDF,
and the result is painful disaster, because they have the wrong mental
model of RDF.

I think it is fine to quietly continue to serve RDF/XML if you have
already been doing so, but please do not serve any new data in RDF/XML,
and please do not use RDF/XML in published examples of RDF.

BTW, the old "Semantic Web Layer Cake"
is flat out wrong in showing XML at the base, as RDF/XML is merely one
serialization of RDF, which is syntax independent.  Here is a much
better version:
It appears in this slide set from Ivan:


David Booth, Ph.D.

Aaron's Law, in memory of Web prodigy and open information 
advocate Aaron Swartz: http://bit.ly/USR4rx 

Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect those of my employer.
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 14:53:08 UTC

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