Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files

On 06/02/2013 10:59, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> More ??? Well, I was heading the other way round actually for sake of 
> simplicity. As said before I've used RDF/XML for years despite all 
> criticisms, and was happy with it (the devil you know etc). What I 
> understand of the current trend is that to ease RDF and linked data 
> adoption we should promote now this simple, both human-readable and 
> machine-friendly publication syntax (Turtle). And having tried it for 
> a while, I now begin to be convinced enough as to adopt it in 
> publication - thanks to continuing promotion by Kingsley among others :)
>
> And now you tell me I should still bother to provide n other formats, 
> RDF/XML and more. I thought I was about to simplify my life, you tell 
> me I have to make the simple things, *plus* the more complex ones as 
> before. Hmm.
Well I for one would make a plea to keep RDF/XML in the portfolio. 
Turtle is only machine-processible if you happen to have a Turtle parser 
in your tool box.

I'm quite happily processing Linked Data resources as XML, using only 
XSLT and a forwarder which adds Accept headers to an HTTP request. It 
thereby allows me to grab and work with LD content (including SPARQL 
query results) using the standard XSLT document() function.

In a web development context, JSON would probably come second for me as 
a practical proposition, in that it ties in nicely with widely-supported 
javascript utilities.

To me, Turtle is symptomatic of a world in which people are still 
writing far too many Linked Data examples and resources by hand, and 
want something that is easier to hand-write than RDF/XML.  I don't 
really see how that fits in with the promotion of the idea of 
machine-processible web-based data.

Richard
-- 
*Richard Light*