- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:06:20 -0700
- To: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Danny Ayers wrote: > >... > There's a reasonable consensus on the ugliness of RDF/XML syntax. > After all, it isn't intended for human consumption. RDF/XML: "the machine efficiency of XML with the readability of ASN.1" ;) If it isn't intended for human consumption then it should be machine-optimized binary. > N3 is fine and dandy for the illuminati, those that have already > noticed that RDF seen as triples or node & arc graphs is essentially > reasonably simple. But a newcomer to RDF may first be put off by > RDF/XML, and what do they find if they look further? - a completely > new notation to learn, probably unlike anything they have seen > before. Obfuscation City. New ideas will have new notations. People learn to deal with new notations all of the time. -- Paul Prescod
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 14:09:12 UTC