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

Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:31:22 +0100
Cc: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <73F4320D-05F7-4133-8FF6-A0D5C674552B@bblfish.net>
To: Jürgen Jakobitsch <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>

On 23 Dec 2011, at 11:21, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:

> hi,
> 
> am i missing something with this turtle discussion?
> 
> if openRDF [1] for example already implemented a parser and writer,
> i assume it is well supported and a common rdf serialization, no?

Sometimes in specs we ask people to say yay on obvious things so they
can't say nay later. 

And Java libraries are not the only ones. There may be groups with other 
parsers we should listen to.

Turtle is even a formal W3C standard

   http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

( Also the tricky backgroun question was more turtle and dropping rdf/xml .
I think we have a good compromise on that: MUST on consumers and
deprecate on publishers, and remove the example from spec. )

Henry

> 
> seeAlso [2]
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.openrdf.org/doc/sesame2/api/org/openrdf/rio/turtle/package-summary.html
> [2] http://openjena.org/wiki/RIOT
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> To: "Stéphane Corlosquet" <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Patrick Logan" <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>, "WebID XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 10:24:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 Dec 2011, at 06:44, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ah that's a good idea.
> 
> 
> MUST support by consumer, deprecate for user.
> 
> 
> I like the idea.
> 
> 
> Henry
> 
> --
> | Jürgen Jakobitsch,
> | Software Developer
> | Semantic Web Company GmbH
> | Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
> | A - 1070 Wien, Austria
> | Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22
> 
> COMPANY INFORMATION
> | http://www.semantic-web.at/
> 
> PERSONAL INFORMATION
> | web   : http://www.turnguard.com
> | foaf  : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
> | skype : jakobitsch-punkt

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 10:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 December 2011 10:31:55 GMT