Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

I think RDF-JSON would be a good thing to get into a W3C recommendation:
http://n2.talis.com/wiki/RDF_JSON_Specification

Not only is JSON nicer to deal with than XML, it's also a much lower
impedance mismatch with many of the "schema-less" document-oriented stores
that are becoming popular and tend to serialize documents in JSON or
JSON-like formats (e.g. CouchDB and MongoDB).

-Pius

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> > 2009/11/1 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>:
> > > So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything?
> >
> > Turtle syntax.
>
> Yeah...  Any insights into how to handle the costs of having multiple
> syntaxes?  Should the expectation be that all RDF consuming software
> will handling exactly three syntaxes (RDF/XML, RDFa, and Turtle)?  I
> guess many systems already do, and compared to the other two, parsing
> Turtle is trivial.
>
>    -- Sandro
>
>
>