- From: Mark <markw@illuminae.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:02:43 -0700
- To: "Michael Miller" <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>, "conor dowling" <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>
- Cc: "Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E]" <haudt@mail.nih.gov>, "Jim McCusker" <james.mccusker@yale.edu>, "John Madden" <john.madden@duke.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:48:04 -0700, conor dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com> wrote: > true but I think this is more comfort and tool-chain stuff than a matter > of > XML as the best medium. RDF/XML is not at all popular with RDF-tool > folks. > It's the evil step brother who isn't allowed in the house where turtle > etc. > lives. I used to use it a lot but I only serialize it out now for those > who > like XML. I just want to interject in this conversation on this particular point, because I think I have something ~~~useful to say... (???) The (only??) benefit I have ever found from the XML serialization of RDF is that you can encode the language. Native RDF has absolutely no way to represent e.g. labels/definitions in different languages. As far as I am aware, the only way to have multi-lingual RDF is in the XML encoding... I think this is a flaw in RDF, that is *saved* by the XML serialization... though I am not in any way a "fan" of this bloated representation. Nevertheless, we're not creating a semantic web for Anglophones... we're creating it for the world! so... unless I am missing something obvious (and I may be!) I still rely on the XML serialization in order to promote internationalization of the knowledge that is being represented... Mark
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 16:00:49 UTC