- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:03:09 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 3 Mar 2011, at 21:56, Steve Harris wrote: >> I don't think you can argue that users have one firm expectation for the handling of N-Triples and a different firm expectation for N-Quads. > > I really can. The usecases for those file formats are significantly different. I dispute that. I believe that both are mostly used for exchanging large RDF dumps (ignoring the use of N-Triples for test cases). At any rate, the use cases for both formats are far from disjoint. If we had made N-Quads syntactically disjoint from N-Triples, then we'd get the situation where a system that only supports N-Triples rejects an N-Quads file that has has “DEFAULT” at the end of every line. >> This is a concern I share, and a reason why I'm opposed to multigraph/quad support in “small-scale” formats like TriG, Turtle, RDF/XML or RDF/JSON. > > I also regard N-Triples as a "small-scale" format. Why? Its advantages over Turtle (easy to grep/sed, easy to parse with O(1) memory, easy to merge) seem to be relevant for large files but not for small ones. Best, Richard
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 18:04:43 UTC