[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:16:12 +0100, bryan <bry@itnisk.com> wrote:
> If one has a rdf provider, should one default to a N3 syntax or to
> RDF/XML? Since RDF/XML is the official serialization format it would be
> reasonable to default to that, but as N3 is perhaps a little bit easier
> and comprehensible it might instead be sensible to default to that. Any
> opinions as to which way I should go on this?
As editor of the RDF/XML spec (revising the 1999 era syntax) what do you
expect me to say? Use the one based on XML for all the advantages of
that. I'm using XSLT, RelaxNG, expat, libxml and other standard XML
languages and tools to produce, consume and check it, as are many
others.
N3 is an RDF-based research language (that is, it has extensions that
are not RDF). It is an evolving work and has a bunch of issues, the
important ones I see are internationalisation support, content encoding
(it has one, UTF-8) and using a vast amount of [] ; , {} => := = etc.
syntax.
There is, however, a handy subset that might be picked out and I'm
looking at that based on the other doc I co-edit, N-Triples
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples
but this is *xml*-dev not ascii-dev or www-rdf-interest :)
Dave
|
