> I encourage all RDF publishers to use one of the other standard RDF formats > such as Turtle or JSON-LD.
+1 To be honest, even after several years in the SemWeb community, I have to admit I still cannot read RDF/XML. It's just too complicated for me and I don't see a point in learning it, given that Turtle is more compact and easier to read. This is also why I've also vowed to never support RDF/XML in any libraries I write. I'm happy to see that W3C has made Turtle the default for popular documents such as http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns. And content negotiation still allows backward-compatibility in any case. Here's an Accept header I typically use for clients: Accept: application/trig;q=1.0,application/n-quads;q=0.7,text/turtle;q=0.6,application/n-triples;q=0.3,text/n3;q=0.2 I first try quad-based formats, then triple-based formats, preferring the abbreviated syntaxes in both cases. It should be noted, however, that gzipping N-Quads/N-Triples can perform better than the added parsing complexity of TriG/Turtle. Best, Ruben