W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [TURTLE] Turtle Inverse Properties

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:01:52 -0400
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>, RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1345428112.8643.2659.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 22:53 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 3:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:30 -0700, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> >> Objections to both original syntax and revised syntax
> >> =====================================================
> >>
> >> Turtle is a reasonably settled languages, changes made by the working
> >> group so far have been limited to areas of existing differences in
> >> implementation.
> >>
> >> No demand over years of implementation experience
> > I think that may be slightly misleading, because Turtle was not
> > previously standardized, and hence was on the same footing as N3, and
> > those who wanted to use this feature simply considered their RDF to be
> > N3 instead of Turtle.  I.e., there was no *need* to demand it in Turtle
> > because Turtle was not previously chosen over N3 for standardization.
> In turn, I think this is misleading -- Turtle has far more 
> implementations than N3, and so -- standard or not -- has had far more 
> opportunity for users of those implementations (of which there are many) 
> to demand this feature in a volume that would have lead to it being 
> adopted. This has not happened even a single time that I know of. Given 
> the scarcity of N3 implementations, I sincerely doubt that users simply 
> abandoned their existing Turtle toolkits and picked up an N3 toolkit 
> instead so that they could use inverse property syntax.

Fair enough.  I guess the fact that Turtle is much more widely used than
N3 is pretty good empirical evidence that the lack of this feature was
not as important as using a format with wider support.

I would categorize this feature as a "nice to have".   But I am a little
concerned that if it isn't added to Turtle, then we may never get it,
because once Turtle is standardized there may not be sufficient
motivation to standardize N3.

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 02:02:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:53 UTC