- From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:47:31 +0100
- To: Johannes Busse <busse@ontoprise.de>
- CC: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au>
Stephen Bounds wrote: > > I think this is a mistake. One of the best things about the Core > Guide and Vocabulary Spec was that they have an extensive set of > RDF/XML examples which, let's face it, form the vast bulk of > implemented RDF systems. Johannes Busse wrote: > > I agree with Stephen. From an (ontology engineering) *practitioner* > point of view XML still is *the* data exchange format today. Even if N3 > or turtle are supposed to me more reader friendly I prefer RDF/XML > because I can paste the examples directly into all my systems. And > because of that it is the format I do understand best. :-) RDF/XML is one of the main reasons why adoption of RDF took so long. There are dozens of ways to encode the same graph in RDF/XML. Without a full specialized parser you are lost. RDF/XML might be more known and it *looks* more easy but it confuses more then it helps. RDF is a graph, XML is a tree. If you mix both it can only get worse. Either you don't touch it by hand but write and parse it with serious programming libraries - then the encoding is irrelevant anyway. Or you try to read, parse, and write it on your own and you will introduce bugs in your application and wrong conceptions in your minds. Just my rant, Jakob -- Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 08:48:27 UTC