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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:37:41 -0500
Message-ID: <52A8B0F5.1050206@dbooth.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
I am satisfied with this resolution.

Thanks!
David

On 12/11/2013 01:27 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> David,
>
> 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.
>
>      Andy
>
> 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 18:38:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 December 2013 18:38:09 UTC