Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

On 2 Nov 2009, at 05:48, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> 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?

Quoting [1]:

“There are various ways to serialize RDF descriptions. Your data  
source should at least provide RDF descriptions as RDF/XML which is  
the only official syntax for RDF.”

It surely wouldn't say this if Turtle was a W3C Rec. If it didn't say  
this, then we'd have a lot more Turtle and a lot less RDF/XML on the  
web right now.

The rule will remain: “If in doubt, use RDF/XML.” The W3C Rec stamp of  
approval matters.

Best,
Richard

[1] http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/



>
> 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.
>