- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:51:58 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
> I encourage all RDF publishers to use one of the other standard RDF formats such as Turtle or JSON-LD.
+1
To be honest, even after several years in the SemWeb community,
I have to admit I still cannot read RDF/XML. It's just too complicated for me
and I don't see a point in learning it, given that Turtle is more compact and easier to read.
This is also why I've also vowed to never support RDF/XML in any libraries I write.
I'm happy to see that W3C has made Turtle the default for popular documents
such as http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.
And content negotiation still allows backward-compatibility in any case.
Here's an Accept header I typically use for clients:
Accept: application/trig;q=1.0,application/n-quads;q=0.7,text/turtle;q=0.6,application/n-triples;q=0.3,text/n3;q=0.2
I first try quad-based formats, then triple-based formats,
preferring the abbreviated syntaxes in both cases.
It should be noted, however, that gzipping N-Quads/N-Triples
can perform better than the added parsing complexity of TriG/Turtle.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:52:29 UTC