On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:48:04 -0700, conor dowling
<conor-dowl...@caregraf.com> wrote:
true but I think this is more comfort and tool-chain stuff than a matter
of
XML as the best medium. RDF/XML is not at all popular with RDF-tool
folks.
It's the evil step brother who isn't allowed in the house where turtle
etc.
lives. I used to use it a lot but I only serialize it out now for those
who
like XML.
I just want to interject in this conversation on this particular point,
because I think I have something ~~~useful to say... (???)
The (only??) benefit I have ever found from the XML serialization of RDF
is that you can encode the language. Native RDF has absolutely no way to
represent e.g. labels/definitions in different languages. As far as I am
aware, the only way to have multi-lingual RDF is in the XML encoding...
I think this is a flaw in RDF, that is *saved* by the XML serialization...
though I am not in any way a "fan" of this bloated representation.
Nevertheless, we're not creating a semantic web for Anglophones... we're
creating it for the world! so... unless I am missing something obvious
(and I may be!) I still rely on the XML serialization in order to promote
internationalization of the knowledge that is being represented...
Mark
