- From: Kevin Smathers <ks@micky.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 07:44:20 -0700
- To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: " (www-rdf-dspace@w3.org)" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:26:17AM +0100, Butler, Mark wrote:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Examples
>
> So my suggestion here would be perhaps SIMILE as a project should adopt N3
> rather than RDF/XML for documentation. However this means everyone needs to
> invest a small amount of time understanding it. However I think we are
> better using N3 rather than graphs as once you start to deal with anything
> complicated, it's impossible to make printed versions of RDF graphs
> readable.
>
Really? I haven't experienced any problems using graphs to represent
graphs. What kinds of problems have you experienced that are easier
to understand as N3 than as graphs.
I consider the graph of an RDF document to be analogous to UML for a
class inheritance diagram. It isn't impossible to navigate the text
version, but it is much easier to understand the UML. Even the link
'http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Examples' uses graphs to explain N3.
A browseable N3 representation might approach the usability of plain
graphs, but depending on the reader to collapse nodes with identical
URL's makes it difficult for me to read either XML or N3 notation.
Cheers,
-kls
--
========================================================
Kevin Smathers kevin.smathers@hp.com
Hewlett-Packard kevin@ank.com
Palo Alto Research Lab
1501 Page Mill Rd. 650-857-4477 work
M/S 1135 650-852-8186 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94304 510-247-1031 home
========================================================
use "Standard::Disclaimer";
carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 10:43:43 UTC