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

Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:44:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnG_5NPH+XR-FR_Ov_vUAFSvo_rRQzAu2ObCYHdxGK2CqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. I do not see any issues off hand for moving Turtle forward. What is
> next?
>
> could you ask on the LinkedData list, or find some way of getting people
> there to vote?  Well turtle support will get full support I believe,
> but the more difficult question is after that should one drop RDF/XML as a
> must
> support? Or should one have both? I don't find it difficult to do both.
>

We should leave RDF/XML as a MUST (on verifier side), even for all its
cons, most libs support it (I don't know of any RDF lib which support
Turtle but RDF/XML for example). If anything, we could simply remove the
ugly RDF/XML snippet from the spec.


>
>
> > 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?)
>
> I like N3, but there are too few good parsers for it sadly (many that
> claim to be N3 parsers are not). I think it's time is still to come.
> And so I'd love to mention it, but more as an aside.
>

-1. I don't see what mentioning N3 would bring aside from confusion. N3's
subset Turtle is all we need (for the reasons Henry and I mentioned in
previous emails).

Steph.


>
>
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 05:45:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 December 2011 05:45:15 GMT