Dear John, (01)
yes sure, I understand your thoughts and the history of why W3C
preferred XML at that time. Now, however, since some years, we can
simply use N3, Turtle, and JSON-LD and this clearly makes using RDF
simpler, more intuitive, and also better to parse. (02)
>> That multiplicity is a symptom of a bad design. (03)
I am not sure. To me the idea of separating the serialization seems like
a good idea, especially to be able to follow new trends in technologies
and the Web in general. (04)
I am not disagreeing that there are several design problems with RDF,
e.g., the missing ability to scope statements (e.g., temporarily). But
this does not mean that RDF would not be extremely useful and so far it
made a great contribution. For instance, it allowed us to create the
Linked Data cloud which seems to be the biggest knowledge graph ever
generated (and yes, there are also problems with LD). (05)
Best,
Krzysztof (06)
On 01/24/2014 04:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Krzysztof,
>
> 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.
>
> In fact, even the two designers -- Guha and Bray -- admitted that
> RDF notation was bad. As Tim Bray said, "It's the syntax, stupid."
>
> JFS
>>> That is why they [Google] use JSON instead of the XML-based notations.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (07)
--
Krzysztof Janowicz (08)
Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 (09)
Email: jano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
|