Re: RE : Lack of RDF/XML examples in new standards

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...