Re: Default RDF serialization

+1 to both Steve and David.

On 8/23/12 7:19 AM, Steve K Speicher wrote:
> I strongly agree as well with these points.  The only reason RDF/XML was
> the only required serialization the member submission is it was the only
> W3C Recommendation and we attempted to only reference "official"
> standards.  Since this appears to be changing within W3C, then this
> limitation no longer exists.  There was no technical reason, the
> preference would be Turtle.  There is some consideration in the amount of
> broad support for the serializations and therefore RDF/XML had a little
> appeal but that is perhaps taking a too narrow view without the desire to
> move things in right direction.
>
> I think you may have underestimated the problem you identified in (d) as
> this is something that I deal with on a fairly regular basis.
>
> My preference order for RDF serialization formats would be:
> 1) Turtle  (minimal requirement)
> 2) JSON-LD
> 3) RDF/XML
>
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> http://open-services.net
>
> David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote on 08/23/2012 10:08:05 AM:
>
>> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
>> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
>> Date: 08/23/2012 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Default RDF serialization
>>
>> FWIW, if the LD profile is going to recommend one RDF serialization as
>> the default for RDF, I would argue strongly that it should be Turtle
>> instead of RDF/XML, because:
>>
>>   (a) Turtle is far more human friendly to read;
>>   (b) RDF/XML is not XML Schema friendly;
>>   (c) RDF/XML has XML-based restrictions (such as prohibiting local names
>> that start with a digit) that make certain RDF difficult to represent;
>>   (d) RDF/XML has had a history of misleading developers who are familiar
>> with XML (but not RDF) into thinking that RDF is just a kind of XML.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -- 
>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>> http://dbooth.org/
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>> reflect those of his employer.
>>
>>
>