- 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>
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" http://www.w3.org/2001/09/06-ecdl/slide17-0.html 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: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Offices/Presentations/RDFTutorial/figures/TwoTowers.png It appears in this slide set from Ivan: http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/1214-Trento-IH/#%28160%29 > -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ 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