W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Deprecate most "native" RDF serializations

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:23:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4FA3921D.1030409@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 04/05/12 05:42, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Please send a strong signal out to RDF authors deprecating the following
> "native" RDF serializations:
>
> * RDF/XML
> * N-Triples
> * N3
> * TRiG
> * N-Quads
> * anything else that isn't TURTLE :)

What is the current state?  I seem to see Turtle and not RDF/XML these 
days but that isn't a systematic observation.

> That is, something that we can point people to and say: W3C says not to
> use that, don't use it for any future work, put a bullet in the
> serialization.
>
> The only officially supported RDF serializations should be:
>
> * TURTLE
> * TURTLE Lite

Actually, I don't see N-Triples for "Turtle Lite" as causing problems. 
Developers get it and it stresses which subset of Turtle it is.

> TURTLE Lite would effectively be a subset of TURTLE - N-Quads, or
> something that would be N-Quads-like (allowing for either "s p o" or "s
> p o c" statements).

We have discussed this.  It is very helpful to know that a large set of 
data (10e6+ triples) is all triples, and not quads, ahead of time. 
Triples can be read into a single graph; quads can't. However it's done, 
a way to indicate that it's triples only is needed.

graphs != datasets.

> The goal would be to simplify the dizzying array of options authors have
> in front of them right now and send a clear message about what they
> should be using and not using.

That would be good.  Your proposed mechanism ("only officially 
supported") would be OK if there wasn't so much deployed software, 
documentation and data.  From my viewpoint of linked data, there is a 
significant amount of data out there; a lot of people (not wg members) 
who have evangelised it to their organisations; and open source projects 
who implement the specs (forget Jena here - we're here and can be 
presumed motivate to make changes -- it is other projects who don't 
inhabit WGs that I'm thinking of). That makes for a big cost of change 
and a big mess of a transition.

	Andy

>
> -- manu
>
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 08:24:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT