W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:07:07 -0500
Message-ID: <52B0E72B.5010401@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/17/13 6:09 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> Andy,
> Just to let you know that we adopted your suggestion for an open issue 
> in the
> Primer, namely to use the SPARQL style PREFIX/... notation in the 
> examples.
> See the published version
> Our rationale: people who prefer @prefix will probably not read the 
> Primer.
> Of course open for debate if people feel it should be different.
> Guus

As per a comment I made a while back (re. Turtle example 3), what's 
wrong with dropping prefixes from the examples all together?

Please understand, these examples aren't for us (as I've already 
stated), they are for the folks that have historically found RDF 
confusing or too complex.

If you drop prefixes, you lose some aesthetics while gaining a broader 
audience. When prefixes aren't in play, the very essence of RDF based 
Linked Data manifests right before the reader, as she or he progresses 
through the material.

Note: I am commenting based on actual experience teaching Turtle to a 
variety of student profiles (RDF doubters and/or neophytes) without 
prefixes. It actually works very well.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 00:07:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC