W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2000

SV: The semantic web

From: Greg FitzPatrick <gf@medianet.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:33:04 +0200
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN" <pachampi@caramail.com>
Cc: "Tom Van Eetvelde" <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Pierre Maraninchi" <penguino@caramail.com>, <frankh@cs.vu.nl>, "Pierre Maraninchi" <penguino@caramail.com>, <dieter.fensel@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Message-ID: <NCBBJIFAOLHFMAPPOLHCOEKICOAA.gf@medianet.org>
> Charles McCN:
> As I understood it, RDF was meant to be read by machines, rather than by
> people. What the syntax looks like is almost irrelevant in the content of
a
> user interface that people are expected to use anyway.
>

I dont quite agree with you.  We have had this up before in a short
discussion during the "certain difficulty" thread.

Though in one sense (for the machines in an A2A environment) it surely holds
that there is no reason to have human readable code/syntax, remember that
RDF development is to a large extent a consensus process.  Human readable
syntax is of the greatest benefit.

We are constantly looking at each others examples on this list and it is
quite (relatively) easy to picture what is going on.

XML stipulates in 1.1 Origin and Goals. XML documents should be
human-legible and reasonably clear.  RDF M&S doesn't explicitly say this but
I think it is part of the deal.

Of course, what disadvantages (if any) human-legibility  and consequently
verbosity and bloat cause later on in the process is another matter.

Greg
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 11:33:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT