- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:17:54 +0100
- To: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@kb.nl>, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Ed Summers wrote: [...] > I think emphasizing the data model behind skos is essential. Making > people digest turtle and rdf before they dig into skos may be kind of > a bitter pill for those that are already familiar with xml ... but in > the long run I think it's worth it. > > //Ed > > PS. also I've found Turtle plays well to the JSON friendly web2.0 crowd :-) Somewhat of an aside - If we can stick to the subset of Turtle that is the same as SPARQL, then there's a benefit. We are emphasising both the abstract data model, as well as that these data patterns correspond directly to our querying language design. Btw re Web 2, a lot of Web 2.0-ish specs these days define a REST API that has both XML and JSON flavours. The fact that RDF/SPARQL/SKOS has a principles and extensible mechanism for being viewed both in JSON and XML ought to count in our favour. cheers, Dan ps. all that said, RDF/XML isn't *that* hard to read, if you cheat. "Wherever you see an XML element beginning with a lowercase letter, that element is telling you about a property (aka attribute, relationship); as are the simple XML attributes. Wherever you see an XML element beginning with a Capital Letter, that element is telling you about some particular thing, and naming that element after a category/class. When you see rdf:Description it is doing the same but not giving you the class name." This works with 90%+ of RDF vocabularies. RSS1 being the biggest exception. Something more specific could probably be said for SKOS...
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 14:18:41 UTC