FWIW, 

Here’s the W3C’s RDF Primer with examples in turtle instead of RDF/XML:
http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/

And the turtle spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

Aaron


On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> kc
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet