Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

Danny Ayers wrote:
> 2009/11/2 Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>:
> 
>> But really, I'm not so sure the lack of blessing on these various
>> alternative syntaxes has been too big an interoperability headache.... has
>> it?
> 
> In the wild the most complaints I've heard, and the biggest
> misunderstandings, have been through RDF/XML syntax. It works, and it
> can be understood (and danbri has a nice history doc somewhere) but
> it's horrible compared to most serialisations of stuff.

Right, which is why those alternative syntaxes exist and have many 
interoperable implementations.

Are there a lot of people/systems out there that refuse to do anything 
but RDF/XML because it's the only serialization that is a W3C 
Recommendation?

Lee

> I'm not a huge fan of e.g. JSON (because namespaces/URIs aren't built
> in) but the rest of the world is.
> 
> The tasty bits of RDF aren't immediately accessible through an XML parser.
> 
> (you know damn well I've been an RDF/XML advocate for years, position
> shifted m'fraid)
> 
> 
> Danny.
>

Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 05:49:13 UTC