W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Turtle support for Multiple Graphs, suggestion

From: David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:37:14 -0400
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C164B6A4-CF88-414A-87B1-0087272AB523@talis.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
The WG has expressed an interest in changing Turtle very, very little.  That alone makes this proposal interesting enough to discuss.

Regards,
Dave




On Apr 1, 2011, at 13:19, Nathan wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> Nothing I guess, other than lending to a single, simple, coherent specification and single format which supports virtually all use-cases needed.
> 
> That said, I also see many benefits in keeping two distinct formats (such as TriG and Turtle), since I /really really really/ don't want to be following my nose around the web to documents containing quads or multiple graphs, and perhaps selfishly, don't really want the pain that will induce in API land.
> 
> So, although I suggested it and would maintain that it may well be easier for newcomers to understand than TriG or N-Quads, I really don't like the idea of having a single format myself :D and see anything Quad or Multiple Graph as being related to data store synchronization and data dumps, rather than to RDF.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> Hi Nathan,
>> What would be the benefit of inventing something like this compared to using TriG which is similar in spirit and already in (some) use?
>> Lee
>> On 4/1/2011 12:10 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Just a quick, mini proposal wrt supporting multiple "named graphs" in
>>> turtle.
>>> 
>>> We could add a new keyword and directive, @graph (or @namespace), who's
>>> value was an IRI. This would be a minimal change to the grammar, for
>>> example:
>>> 
>>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
>>> @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
>>> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>>> 
>>> # default graph
>>> <http://example.org/bob> dc:publisher "Bob" .
>>> <http://example.org/alice> dc:publisher "Alice" .
>>> 
>>> @graph <http://example.org/bob> .
>>> _:a foaf:name "Bob" .
>>> _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:bob@oldcorp.example.org> .
>>> 
>>> @graph <http://example.org/alice> .
>>> _:a foaf:name "Alice" .
>>> _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@work.example.org> .
>>> 
>>> I believe it's pretty self explanatory, so will spare getting in to any
>>> heavy details, other than a couple of basic questions:
>>> 
>>> - What would the scope of @prefix and @base declarations be?
>>> (either no change / file wide, or with a scope of the nearest "@graph")
>>> 
>>> - Would the value be an IRI, or an absolute-IRI?
>>> (my own preference would be the latter).
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Nathan
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 17:37:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT