Re: yet another simplified RDF syntax: N-triples + abreviation

I read your paper.
My gut reaction is: nice try, but it's not sufficiently English-like to make it easy for humans to read.

I think there are two separate problems which need to be solved for a language to be easy to read.
1. syntax structure needs to be "natural", i.e., English-like.
2. name qualification needs to be "almost subliminal", i.e., very unobtrusive.

With respect to (1), I like triples (without the <>), but it has some limitations in expressive power.
I have proposed use of the KR language (ref: http://rhm.cdepot.net/doc/KEtutorial.txt) to provide
the extra knowledge representation capability.

With respect to (2), I think the current xmlns:tag convention is good.  To make things even easier
to read, we could eliminate the tags (on the individual names) by stacking the namespaces, and 
finding the first match in the namespace stack.  We could still use an occasional tag if necessary.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chris Goad 
  To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 11:34 AM
  Subject: yet another simplified RDF syntax: N-triples + abreviation



  Inspired partly by the recent crescendo of complaint
  about the RDF XML syntax, here is yet another proposal 
  for a simplified human-oriented syntax for RDF: 

  http://www.mapbureau.com/specs/bracket.html

  The idea is to combine the simplest possible abreviation syntax
  with N-triples.  

  Comments (including "This is just like X that failed years ago ...")
  welcome.

  Chris Goad
  cg@mapbureau.com