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

RE: A Rough Guide to Notation3

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>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFIEEGHJAA.danny666@virgilio.it>


>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 GMT

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