N3 vs XML (yes, probably again)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
cmq
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

N3 vs XML (yes, probably again)

cmq
Peering through W3C documents on OWL, RDF and other stuff, I keep wondering what restricts the W3C members so that instead of writing an example of OWL intersection in N3 as:

:WhiteWine a owl:Class;
  owl:intersectionOf (Wine, [a owl:Restriction; owl:Property :hasColor; owl:hasValue :White]).

they had to use the following XML junk in the Guide:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="WhiteWine">
  <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
    <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" />
    <owl:Restriction>
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" />
      <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#White" />
    </owl:Restriction>
  </owl:intersectionOf>
</owl:Class>

Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#SetOperators

Similar for RDF, etc.

I understand that XML serialisations are best for machine-machine communication, but in cases like this I find it hard to believe that the authors actually didn't use N3 and then translated into the "official" format for publication.

The question is: how come N3 hasn't caught on?  What's wrong with it?