W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Turtle Tuples: Turtle-based query result format

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:06:33 +0000
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna.biz>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1111590393.24655.54.camel@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 11:38 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Hmm... interesting idea. Dave, any thoughts?
> 
> > http://www.openrdf.org/forum/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=436
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jan/0019.html

My comments on the points in the thread.

Less overhead - yeah.  Although Arjohn's later reply says it isn't
always lower in speed.

Easy to parse is possible, but it's yet another format for most people
to have to deal with.

People mostly want an XML format, although the one we're making now
seems to be heading into the more complex design space.

Easy to write - although this may be true for those familiar with
N3/Turtle style languages, this is a query result format and that's
either being written by query processors (so easy to write isn't
critical) or by query engine developers and people working on the SPARQL
language and tests - a small group!

Encoding of 'weird' Unicode - I don't believe this is a big issue as at
least as you raised it for rdf/xml, it was mostly about NUL.

I'm not sure this is something I'd prioritise now over, say, getting the
XML format more polished after feedback.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 15:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT