- From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:46:04 +0100
- To: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
David and all, hello. On 3 Sep 2015, at 22:11, David Booth wrote: > I can appreciate the value of RDF/XML for certain processing tasks, > and I'm okay with keeping RDF/XML alive as a *processing* format. My > suggestion to deprecate RDF/XML was intended to apply to its use as a > *publishing* format. Hear hear. For example: When RDFizing data that originated from something XMLish (or something convenient to process using XML tools), RDF/XML is obviously by far the most convenient target for generation by XSLT or similar. But when doing that I always check my work by immediately converting to Turtle. And having generated it, I might as well serve it out with suitable ConNeg, because it will probably be the most convenient format for _someone_. But there's little need to advertise it, and no need to mention it prominently when introducing RDF. All the best, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 08:46:28 UTC