[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> There seems to be a tension between the experts (especially logicians
> and ontologists) who have gotten used to it (but they tend tu use the N3
> compact notation), and think that rdf will be all generated by tools so
> who cares about the syntax, and people would would like to casually
> author it, like you and me. I thnk that causal and easy authoring will
> be important for helping get widespread adoption (if that ever happens).
>
>
Actually I've heard that idea of the syntax doesn't matter before, it matters
for me not because I might want to write in it, if that was the extent of my
problem I would make some tolerable private syntax and just convert it. What
bothers me is that if I want to make applications that support a data language I
will need to be able to at some level think in the language, and I happen to
always need to think in a language at the syntactical level. If the syntax of
the data language obscures the data model too much I find it really difficult to
think in it, and thus to build stuff that takes advantage of it. I bet lots of
others have the same problem.
So in other words, for the ontologists and logicians out there, I'm complaining
cause I'm the guy who has to make the tools that generate this syntax (or more
likely reasons in the sytax) that makes me violent. If the tools are gonna have
to be online I don't really have the luxury of using a private syntax and
transforming RDF instances into that before starting to work with it. Thanks a
lot ontologists and logicians.
|
