On Fri, 2003-05-09 at 12:50, Tansley, Robert wrote: > > > I think it is clear that *either* N3 *or* graphical representations > > > are more intuitive than XML. Wouldn't N3 be easiest in email, wiki, > > > etc. discussions, esp. where iteration on an example might be > > > required? > > > > N3 is fine for email. But for all 'official'? SIMILE > > documents, I would strongly suggest using the XML serialization. > > Would you mind explaining why? As I've already mentioned, I find the XML serialisation almost impenetrable. It is apparently not meant for human consumption (and IMHO needs a lot of work if that is an intent.) > > Having said that, N3 doesn't look much easier. > > A graph is a fundamentally non-linear thing so a human 'reading' a serialisation (or at least a visual thinker like me) will always have to perform some mental gymnastics to reassemble the serialisation into a graph. Accordingly where RDF must be included in a document to demonstrate some point, I'd strongly suggest showing graphs where at all possible. I may have scanned the email thread a bit too fast. I thought the discussion was wrt RDF/N3 and RDF/XML. I would strongly suggest graphical representations of the RDF model be included in the documentation. We've done both the Graphical and RDF/XML serializations in the Primer and feedback from this experience has been extremely promising. -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 12:55:43 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:35:22 EDT