W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > November 2006

Re: 20 reasons "rdf sucks"

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:02:38 +0000
Message-Id: <14B76902-ACB7-4C37-9422-69DAEC181194@garlik.com>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org
To: Bill de hOra <bill@dehora.net>


On 18 Nov 2006, at 21:08, Bill de hOra wrote:

> Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> I have to say I'm not a huge fan of RDF/XML myself, whilst an XML  
>> serialisation is important RDF/XML is difficult to write and very  
>> hard to generate neatly. It's a pain to parse too.
>> My experiences of introducing developers to RDF is that they  
>> generally take to N3/Turtle or NTriples much more easily. The RDF/ 
>> XML syntax is a lot to pick up on top of the RDF model.
>
> Turtle on the other hand is a very decent syntax (it reminds me of  
> RNC). Something like a JSON format would be even better for  
> developer mindshare - " here's some JSON; it happens to be RDF too,  
> but you don't have to worry about that right now, just load it.  
> Come back next week and we'll talk about the RDF stuff." - is  
> compelling.

That can be a little dangerous, c.f. RSS. If you have people pulling  
apart data that's really in RDF using some hand coded JSON reader  
code that can block you off from changing the data in a way which  
preserves the meaning in an RDF sense, but breaks people's parsers.  
Loosing you some of the benefits of RDF.

- Steve
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2006 11:02:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:34 GMT