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

Re: N3 and N-Triples (was: RDF in HTML: Approaches)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:14:23 -0500
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Message-Id: <599A409C-7715-11D6-A26C-0003936780B2@aaronsw.com>

On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 11:59  AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:

> Registering your digust at Patrick's post as labelling it as FUD
> I'm sure is duly noted, but is unfair and FUD of it's own kind.
> Patrick is right and he isn't spreading FUD.

I don't think that's so clear cut. Patrick wrote:

> I would, thus, not like to see any N3 or NTriples used as primary 
> representations for RDF that are interchanged by real systems.

This is a personal opinion.

> N3 and NTriples are not standard encodings for interchange. RDF/XML is.

First, RDF/XML is not a standard but only a recommendation. Certainly 
it'd be very far from being a standard or even a draft standard in 
something like IETF process. Second, it's unclear that "standard" 
formats are the keys to success. The Web took off using an HTML which 
was specified mostly informally and began to stagnate when the W3C tried 
to standardize it.

> And that's what folks should be using in a global context.

Again, a personal opinion.

Back to Bill:

> The syntax draft is entitled "RDF/XML Syntax Specification
> (Revised)" and there is this note in the Test Case draft re
> N-Triples in Section 3:
>
> [[
> NOTE: N-Triples is not an user RDF syntax - it is intended for RDF
> Core WG testing purposes and checking RDF applications for
> conformance with the specifications.
> ]]]

Sure, it's not for users to write but it's for software to output. I 
think that some of my WG colleagues disagree with me on this, however.

--
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 13:15:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT