17 Jul
2006
17 Jul
'06
6:24 a.m.
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:33:08 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 17:28 +0000, carmen wrote:
To be fair, Turtle is relativly new, whereas RDF/XML is about 10 years
old. There are some tools that don't yet handle Turtle.
I agree about the conversion though. Turtle is much more popular in these
parts, and the conversion is easily done either way.
- Steve
i notice this file:
http://lv2plug.in/spec/lv2.ttl is in the nicely readable turtle format. my main question
is, whether this will be transformed to RDF-XML during 'make install' or perhaps
by the developer themselves (Eg, similar to leaving a configure script around for those
who dont have autoconf).
mainly beacuse, it seems RDF-XML is the dominant serialization format, and having this
additional dependency stand in the way means, at the very least one can't use Pyrple
out of the box. i installed Redland and the Ruby and TCL bindings, and both conspicuously
left out the "Redland::Parser.turtle" method, presumably beacuse i dont have it
installed (and it's not in portage...)
cheers
Why would you want to take a nice, readable format, and translate it
into the confusing bloated mess that is RDF/XML automatically and by
default? Because some particular toolkit can't read N3/Turtle yet?
Silly.
If the toolkit you want to use sucks, then you can convert the N3/Turtle
to RDF/XML yourself easily enough...