not to be too pedantic but I think turtle let's you add language to literals ... "conor"@en "conchuir"@ga or some such. One other use of the XML form is in XML toolchains. You can XSLT the RDF to something else. For example, you can take a graph of patient data and XSLT to a CCD if XSLT is your poison. Conor On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Mark <markw@illuminae.com> wrote: > 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 16:12:53 UTC