Hi Sandro Hawke 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. If anyone was concerned about the costs of multiple syntaxes then we wouldn't have 3 native OWL 2 syntaxes (plus all RDF forms of it), 2 RIF syntaxes, 2 SPARQL query results formats and possibly multiple presentations of the to-be-defined RDF2RDB mapping language [1]. Turtle is out there and to my knowledge every important RDF library supports it - and OWL API does as well. I support having it as a recommendation - not only to give it the status it deserves but also to finally sort out the media type problems around Turtle and N3. :-) And picking up work on the Turtle version of the Primer [2] again would be nice as well. Because of GRDDL you could say that the number of RDF-interpretable formats officially supported by W3C is endless. I'm not sure which formats a conforming RDF tool should be required to parse but I think RDF/XML and Turtle should both be on the list. Regards, Simon [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/rdb2rdf-charter#scope [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 20:29:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:45:47 GMT