- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:39:04 +0200
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>If it isn't intended for human consumption then it should be >machine-optimized binary. That's really one to keep xml-dev rolling, but I still can't resist saying that if we were starting with a blank slate then it should be. However, retooling the existing web wouldn't be a small task. >> N3 is fine and dandy for the illuminati, those that have already >> noticed that RDF seen as triples or node & arc graphs is essentially >> reasonably simple. But a newcomer to RDF may first be put off by >> RDF/XML, and what do they find if they look further? - a completely >> new notation to learn, probably unlike anything they have seen >> before. Obfuscation City. > >New ideas will have new notations. People learn to deal with new >notations all of the time. I have nothing against new ideas or new notations. But what's in n3/RDF that hasn't already been covered by other notations? People learn to deal with bad plumbing and ill-fitting shoes...
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 18:48:33 UTC