TriG/N3 compatibility was: Named Graph Serialisation

"Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> writes:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> > Making the predicate optional, and omitting the final "." messes up =
> the compatibility.  Two small changes!=20
> 
> The predicate is optinal and there is no final "." because N3 and TriG =
> are based on very different abstract models. In N3 you have the notion =
> of a outer document that contains formulas. Therefore you want the final =
> "." The abstract model behind TriG is the Named Graph data model and in =
> newer versions also the SPARQL dataset. Both abstract model do not have =
> any notion an outer document and therefore the final "." is missing in =
> TriG.=20
> 
> The TriG specification =
> (http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/TriG/) allows the use of =
> the shorthand :- for compatibility reasons with N3 (I think Jeremy =
> Caroll or Pat Hayes wanted it in as an option, I can not remember). We =
> overlooked the final "." thing, so the :- option actually does not make =
> TriG N3 compartible.=20
> 
> I'm open to adding the final "." as an option, so that future versions =
> of TriG parsers can read N3. I'm not too sure about making both things =
> mandatory, as N3 and TriG really have different abstract models.
> 
> Any strong opinions on this from anybody? Especially from the people who =
> have implemented TriG parsers and would have to change their code.

... random comments from the peanut gallery:

I think y'all should converge on one syntax.  The difference between the
N3 model and the TriG model needs to be settled anyway.

I think :- is a poor choice of operators here.  To many of us with some
experience with prolog it's the rule connective.

I think the right choice is "=", because (as I understand it), that has
the right semantics.  But maybe I don't know what semantics you want.

      -- Sandro