- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:28:15 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
* Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> [2013-07-23 13:52+0100]
> I think that IF we do this, we do it properly - {} in the subject
> position is important and the the new syntax is already some way
> away from traditional TriG + it is no longer trying to be
> SPARQL-compatible.
>
> Hence: proposal:
>
> 1/ Give it a new name and content type.
>
> This would be better and probably smooth the process of getting a
> REC because a new name does not bring old assumptions with it. No
> issues with existing use.
>
> 2/ Do not have {} for the default graph.
>
> Do have {}-graphs in the subject as well as object positions.
>
> 3/ Publish TriG as a NOTE. It is useful to give it some kind of
> status with the changes for Turtle token alignment etc.
I think we should seriously consider this proposal. It may be the best
path for us to engage potential RDF users with an attractive and
practical language.
> Andy
>
>
--
-ericP
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 13:28:44 UTC