- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:54:04 +0200
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Andrew Newman <andrew@pisoftware.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Feb 13, 2004, at 13:11, ext 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 agree. I view TriX as a highly normalized XML representation of the abstract RDF graph -- with one of the primary benefits being consistency of representation and high usability with generic XML tools, particularly XQuery and XSLT. Compression and human readability were never high priorities. It's meant to be used "under the hood". > I think neither of us are particularly convinced that RDF should be > being entered by hand, without editor support. > +1 (though, admitedly, I write all my RDF/XML by hand... in vi no less ;-) > If I have to, which I did say when writing OWL test cases, I use > RDF/XML; others use N3. > I use RDF/XML for "real" stuff, and alot of N3 for examples and testing. I'm encouraged by the work Dave Beckett has being doing on Turtle [1] and have long been of the opinion that an official subset of N3, corresponding to the expressivity of RDF/XML, should be defined and "blessed" either by spec or W3C Note -- as I think that a standardized keyboard friendly serialization is needed, particularly for human input of RDF queries (c.f. RDFQ [2]). TriX, however, is not meant (by me at least ;-) for human consumption. Cheers, Patrick [1] http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/ [2] http://sw.nokia.com/rdfq/RDFQ.html > > Jeremy > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 03:54:12 UTC