Re: add Turtle examples to specs

I was wondering, perhaps it would be useful for the W3C or some
standards body to "endorse" one of the simplified XML syntax choices for
RDF and a compact notation ala Turtle ... then future RDF applications
could standardize around both a simplified XML syntax like TriX and a
compact notation like Turtles. However, when teaching this to people I
have no choice but to use RDF/XML because, well, that's *the standard*
despite the excellent support in many libraries for alternative
syntactic forms. Hmmm...isn't there a Semantic Web Best Practices
working group whose charter might fall in?

 I have to admit I was teaching students about RSS using both RSS 1.0
and vanilla RSS 2.0  a while back and they had no difficulty with N3
syntax and the RDF concepts, but RDF/XML was difficult.
I feel the lack of uptake of RDF in the Web "2.0" circles and many
sectors of industry is partially just due to the bureaucracy of syntax.
It would be a pity if such a minor notational issue caused some of the
good ideas behind RDF to not be understood or used.

                           harry halpin

Darren Chamberlain wrote:
> * Martin Hepp <martin.hepp at> [2006/03/10 18:47]:
>> You are so damn right - I personally think that the pure existence of
>> RDF/XML has been a major inhibitor for the spread of RDF, since many
>> XML-educated people are unable to take of the XML glasses...
> I'll second this -- RDF/XML was the biggest impediment to me grokking
> what RDF was all about.  It quickly became about the syntax and not the
> model.
> (darren)

Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 20:40:00 UTC