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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
