On 11/5/13 6:45 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> I'm with Ross though:
... and Karen!
> I find it much to read rdf as turtle or json-ld than it is rdf/xml.
It's easier to read, but it's also easier to create *correctly*, and
that, to me, is the key point. Folks who are used to XML have a certain
notion of data organization in mind. Working with RDF in XML one tends
to fall into the XML data "think" rather than the RDF concepts.
I have suggested (repeatedly) to LC on the BIBFRAME list that they
should use turtle rather than RDF/XML in their examples -- because I
suspect that they may be doing some "XML think" in the background. This
seems to be the case because in some of the BIBFRAME documents the
examples are in XML but not RDF/XML. I find this rather ... disappointing.
I also find it useful to create "pseudo-code" triples using whatever
notation I find handy, as in the example I provided earlier for Eric.
Writing out actual valid triples is a pain, but seeing your data as
triples is very useful.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net