- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:56:01 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Andrew Newman <andrew@pisoftware.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Andrew Newman wrote: > >> I'm not sure how TriX is solving the human readability problem, if >> anything the paper seems to suggest that RDF/XML is more readable than >> simple triple based formats and it is still machine readable. > > >That is my position, not sure about Patrick. >I think neither of us are particularly convinced that RDF should be being >entered by hand, without editor support. I have a similar approach. It is good that it is possible to write RDF by hand (something it can inherit from XML, if that is a blessed syntax). In particular because it is easy to make tools that generate RDF, and test them. But I don't think that people hand-editing code is a serious use case. It isn't the case in HTML or XML, where a few adepts do it and millions of others have some interface they understand that produces some code they just trust. Cheers Chaals
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2004 17:56:03 UTC