Hi Zhe I find this a surprisingly strong position. When ingesting N-Triples the code path to read UTF-8 and the code path to read \uXXXX escape sequences are probably equally horrible. The UTF-8 code path is the more conventional one to be following on the Web. It seems like a fairly small amount of extra code for a vendor to support, with negligible impact on performance. The only downside, that I can see, would be that new data will not be readable by old software, which is the normal downside with new versions of a format. We may differ in our judgment about how important that downside is, or I may have missed some other disadvantage that motivates Oracle's strong reaction. My understanding is that 2004 N-triples docs will be valid turtle docs .... Jeremy On 8/18/2011 9:05 AM, Zhe Wu wrote: > Hi, > > After discussing with the whole Oracle Database Semantic Technologies > team, we > have the following consensus within Oracle. > > 1) The existing N-TRIPLES format [1] is key to Oracle's product; > 2) Oracle hasn't received from Oracle's customers any change > request/suggestions regarding the current N-TRIPLES syntax; > 3) As a platform vendor, Oracle does not see any significant > justifications to change/mend the existing syntax; > > Hence Oracle will not support any major changes to the existing > N-TRIPLE format, including > support for UTF-8. > > Thanks, > > Zhe& Souri > > [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples (In "RDF Test Cases: > W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004") > >Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 22:26:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT