W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:57:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD_aa--gx6UrbN0GzvDYQBPRmRCk9jmKLmF+gZ3=dDhyQn=vew@mail.gmail.com>
To: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
I read the 12 December 2011 draft a bit more thoroughly. I seethe spec
includes Turtle as optional in section 1.2:
"The document may be published in a number of other RDF
serializationformats, such as N3 [N3] or Turtle [TURTLE]. Any
serialisation must betransformable automatically and in a standard
manner to an RDF Graph,using technologies such as GRDDL
[GRDDL-PRIMER]."
But "3.2.4.1 Processing the WebID Profile" does not mention this.
So the immediate question w.r.t Turtle is whether or not to *require* Turtle?
I would suggest yes, for the reasons in my previous email, quoted below...
Thanks-Patrick
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another spec-specific thread, this one for moving Turtle forward.
> Again, please keep this thread focused on moving the spec forward in
> support of Turtle. Longer, side conversations should go in a different
> thread.
>
> Henry asked in that other v.long thread:
>
> "I wonder if the linked data crowd would prefer turtle support over
> rdf/xml by now."
>
> My sense is the incremental cost for spec'ing, implementing, and
> testing Turtle is fairly low. And my assumption is that use of Turtle
> is on the upswing relative to RDF/XML.
>
> My preference is for Turtle to be included, because:
>
> * Given the RDF/XML requirement, the incremental cost for spec'ing,
> implementing, and testing Turtle is presumably low.
>
> * Turtle provides a beneficial alternative to RDF/XML or other XML-ish
> notations, as Turtle is more concise and less verbose than RDF/XML.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. I do not see any issues off hand for moving Turtle forward. What is next?
>
> 2. The examples page in the wiki lists Turtle and N3 in one section
> (for somewhat obvious reasons). Should the proposal include the two
> together?
>
> -Patrick
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:57:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:57:34 GMT