- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:08:44 +0000
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 2 Nov 2009, at 05:48, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >> In the wild the most complaints I've heard, and the biggest >> misunderstandings, have been through RDF/XML syntax. It works, and it >> can be understood (and danbri has a nice history doc somewhere) but >> it's horrible compared to most serialisations of stuff. > > Right, which is why those alternative syntaxes exist and have many > interoperable implementations. > > Are there a lot of people/systems out there that refuse to do > anything but RDF/XML because it's the only serialization that is a > W3C Recommendation? Quoting [1]: “There are various ways to serialize RDF descriptions. Your data source should at least provide RDF descriptions as RDF/XML which is the only official syntax for RDF.” It surely wouldn't say this if Turtle was a W3C Rec. If it didn't say this, then we'd have a lot more Turtle and a lot less RDF/XML on the web right now. The rule will remain: “If in doubt, use RDF/XML.” The W3C Rec stamp of approval matters. Best, Richard [1] http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/ > > Lee > >> I'm not a huge fan of e.g. JSON (because namespaces/URIs aren't built >> in) but the rest of the world is. >> The tasty bits of RDF aren't immediately accessible through an XML >> parser. >> (you know damn well I've been an RDF/XML advocate for years, position >> shifted m'fraid) >> Danny. >
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 13:09:24 UTC