- From: Tansley, Robert <robert.tansley@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:50:57 -0700
- To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, "John S. Erickson" <john.erickson@hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
> > 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. Would you mind explaining why? As I've already mentioned, I find the XML serialisation almost impenetrable. It is apparently not meant for human consumption (and IMHO needs a lot of work if that is an intent.) Having said that, N3 doesn't look much easier. A graph is a fundamentally non-linear thing so a human 'reading' a serialisation (or at least a visual thinker like me) will always have to perform some mental gymnastics to reassemble the serialisation into a graph. Accordingly where RDF must be included in a document to demonstrate some point, I'd strongly suggest showing graphs where at all possible. Robert Tansley / Hewlett-Packard Laboratories / (+1) 617 551 7624
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 12:51:06 UTC