W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2002

RE: A Rough Guide to Notation3

From: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:54:41 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHCEFMEFAA.jon@spin.ie>

> There's a reasonable consensus on the ugliness of RDF/XML syntax. 
> After all, it isn't intended for human consumption. But then 
> neither is RDF itself. Ok, so humans will inevitably want to play 
> with the language, but is the answer really a new syntax?

Perhaps one of the advantages in using graphs in talking about RDF is the very fact that you can't input them into a text-editor, hence they help prevent people thinking of N3, RDF/XML, or any other possible encoding as being one and the same as RDF itself (cf. the mental block many people have about element != tag in XML and HTML).

Aside from issues of how well the syntax conveys information to humans they each have clear advantages (okay, I'm winging it, on that point - I've yet to read the primer properly).
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 10:52:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:55 GMT