W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > December 2013

Re: N-Triples - Please encourage ntriples tools to emit *canonical* N-Triples

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:27:41 +0000
Message-ID: <52A8AE9D.7030103@apache.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org

The working group has decided to make the canonical N-Triples 
description a separate section.

Please could you reply with "[RESOLVED]" in the subject line to 
acknowledge handling of this comment.


On 06/12/13 21:33, David Booth wrote:
> On 12/06/2013 05:19 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> (not an official response)
>> David,
>> It is too late in the spec cycle to introduce SHOULD/MUST language -- it
>> is asking implementers to read the spec differently to the LC, CR
>> versions.
>> What I will suggest to the WG is making the description of canonical
>> N-Triples a separate section, not just a subpart of the conformance
>> section.
> I think that's an excellent idea.
> David
>> While this is "editorial" - it's the same text, just moved and reworded
>> if it didn't read correctly any more - we are very close to the
>> transition to PR so I feel it needs to be discussed by the WG.
>> Draft in editors working draft.
>>      Andy
>> On 03/12/13 22:41, David Booth wrote:
>>> Regarding section 4, Conformance:
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html
>>> It would be helpful if tools that generate N-Triples were strongly
>>> encouraged to generate it in canonical form unless there would be a
>>> significant loss to the user in doing so.  For example, if a tool
>>> normally generates useful information in comments, it may be better to
>>> generate non-canonical N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples would
>>> require the comments to be removed.
>>> I suggest adding something like the following to section 4:
>>>    "Tools that generate N-Triples documents SHOULD generate
>>>    **canonical N-Triples documents** unless doing so would
>>>    result in a significant loss in functionality or performance.
>>>    For example, if a tool normally generates useful information
>>>    in comments, it may be preferable to generate non-canonical
>>>    N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples requires comments to be
>>>    removed."
>>> Please note that the RDF 2119 definition of SHOULD is:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>>> [[
>>> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>>>     may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>>     particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>>     carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>>> ]]
>>> Because SHOULD allows this judgement-call-based wiggle room, this change
>>> would not have to affect any conformance tests.
>>> If the working group decides that a "SHOULD" would be too strong, please
>>> instead add an editorial comment to the above effect instead, such as by
>>> saying "are strongly encouraged to" instead of "SHOULD".
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 18:28:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:59 UTC