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

Re: Oracle's stand regarding N-TRIPLES

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:04:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiX05FfjJXQ-PvY+TgTA9REqzqtgnnmr7-i4rQTDELU1j=e7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>wrote:

> Internally we call it .nt8, FWIW.
>
> There's some appeal to just letting N-Triples rot and fall out of use, and
> replacing it with something more modern. On the other hand we have enough
> RDF syntaxes already.
>


Agree. But how many are Recommendations? One currently and we are chartered
to increase that to 4 (Turtle, JSON, N-Triples) so we wouldn't be exceeding
that number.



>
> - Steve
>
> On 2011-08-19, at 10:26, Ian Davis wrote:
>
> One option could be to leave ntriples where it is and give the utf8 version
> a new name and put it on the REC track. U-Triples? (Maybe go further to
> U-Quads)
> On 19 Aug 2011 10:18, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Jeremy.
> >
> > For us, the lack of UTF-8 support is a serious impediment to using
> N-Triples as a bulk dump/restore format.
> >
> > We use UTF-8 internally to hold RDF literals, as every other format is
> natively UTF-8, so the export to N-Triples requires a lot of unnecessary and
> inefficient escaping.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> > On 2011-08-18, at 23:26, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >
> >> 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")
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> > 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> > +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
> > Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> > Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>
>


-- 
Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd.
http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 10:05:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT