Krzysztof, (01)
No declarative or procedural language in the history of computer
science and applications has as many notations as RDF and OWL.
That multiplicity is a symptom of a bad design. (02)
In fact, even the two designers -- Guha and Bray -- admitted that
RDF notation was bad. As Tim Bray said, "It's the syntax, stupid." (03)
JFS
>> That is why they [Google] use JSON instead of the XML-based notations. (04)
KJ
> Just for clarification, RDF is not restricted to XML. You can also use
> N3. There is also a JSON format for Linked Data called JSON-LD. (05)
JSON, by the way, is just LISP notation with brackets and curly braces.
LISP was, in fact, Guha's preferred notation. And JSON was designed
by Netscape -- where Guha and Bray were employed at the time. (06)
But many voters in the W3C were in the grip of an untested ideology:
edict XML for everything. I had been using GML at IBM since the 1970s,
and I still use HTML for all my word processing. (I use OpenOffice or
LibreOffice for converting HTML to .doc or .pdf format.) (07)
But a notation that's good for word processing is a disaster for
logic, ontologies, data storage, data transmission, human factors,
education, and official standards. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (010)
|