- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: 09 May 2003 11:05:22 -0400
- To: "John S. Erickson" <john.erickson@hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-05-09 at 10:24, John S. Erickson wrote: > > Andy wrote: > > > All these syntaxes are just different ways of writing the > > edge list of the graph down. Visual picture of graphs can > > be useful too but they don't scale and they don't do well > > in text emails. N3 does have a clear(er) syntax and > > can be used in a frame-like way. Personally, I don't find > > that N-triples scale any better than images of graphs... > > I think it is clear that *either* N3 *or* graphical representations are more > intuitive than XML. Wouldn't N3 be easiest in email, wiki, etc. discussions, > esp. where iteration on an example might be required? N3 is fine for email. But for all 'official'? SIMILE documents, I would strongly suggest using the XML serialization. > It would certainly be the most *direct* approach, unless someone out there has > a WYSIWYG RDF graph editor... IsaViz - http://www.w3.org/2001/11/IsaViz/ -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:09:49 UTC