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

Re: TriG being disjoint from Turtle

From: Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:36:54 +0200
Message-ID: <51964E96.1080804@vu.nl>
To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 05/17/2013 05:12 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl
> <mailto:J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>     I'm sure this will eventually sort itself out as the old versions of
>     these formats die away and everybody complies to the latest standard.
>     That might take a while though :-( Also, nobody says this is the last
>     revision of RDF serialization syntax.
>
>
>
> The goal of this Turtle standardization effort was to NOT change the
> parsing of any existing (non pathological) Turtle document. If you are
> aware of any changes we made that do change existing Turtle data please
> tell us. All existing Turtle documents should parse to exactly the same
> RDF Graph (with the exception of changes in RDF Concepts 1.1, such as
> plain literals becoming xsd:strings). Parsers need updating to deal with
> interop issues, but documents and data shouldn't.

The only case I came across with while running my new parser on the
(very) old test cases was (test-28.ttl, #-comment by me).

<http://example.org/foo>
     <http://example.org/bar>
         2.345,
         1,
         1.0,
#       1.,                     (no longer valid)
         1.000000000,
	...

Whether that is pathological or not is a bit of a border case I'd say.

Otherwise, I think you are right validity of data wrt. versions. What
remains are two things. Firstly, if the file has a version that is newer
than what my parser supports I'd much rather tell this right away than
generating hard to understand error messages. Secondly, we have a lot of
different formats, most of which produce triples and some quads (with
multiple graphs) and they all look alike. What parser do I take if the
extension/mimetype is lacking/wrong/lost? If that is the most generic
(TriG/quads), I'm beginning to wonder why we have all these other ones
...

	Cheers --- Jan

P.s.	The most common issue I've come accross with is about
	handling %XX in RDF data.  I think the standards are
	clear, but the daily experience is no fun :-(
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 15:37:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:56 UTC