First-Order Logic has no standard ASCII syntax, but
has highly standardized terminology and semantics
∀ x ∃ y : loves(x, y)
all x (exists y (loves(x,y))) [Otter Syntax]
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/08/LX/RDF/v2#"
xmlns:log="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/08/LX/RDF/v2#TrueSentence"/>
<subformula rdf:parseType="Resource">
<exivar rdf:resource="http://example.com/#Y"/>
<subformula rdf:parseType="Resource">
<objectTerm rdf:resource="http://example.com/#Y"/>
<predicate rdf:resource="http://example.com/#loves"/>
<subjectTerm rdf:resource="http://example.com/#X"/>
</subformula>
</subformula>
<univar rdf:resource="http://example.com/#X"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
...but it's BIG. I can think of about 4 other general styles we
could use here, with no big win for any of them over the other.