- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:09:02 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, semantic-web@w3.org
nonono SPARQL include stuff - that's how you get graphs. 2009/11/1 Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>: > sorry Sandro - it just occurred to me that the thing syntax-wise is > needed is really Turtle + named graphs - well below cwm stuff, but > maybe get the recipe for formulae from there > > > 2009/11/1 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>: >>> 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), >> >> Exactly one syntax for OWL is required (the RDF/XML based one). All the >> rest are optional. I wouldn't publish them on the open web, unless I >> was content-negotiating with RDF/XML as well. But tool makers want to >> use them inside systems, and in books and such. >> >>> 2 RIF syntaxes, >> >> The presentation syntaxes are just for people reading the spec and test >> cases. As with OWL, there is exactly one canonical/required syntax (the >> XML one). >> >> So, yes, we still have the social cost of multiple syntaxes, but at >> least systems gathering W3C-standard data off the open web don't have to >> understand a zillion syntaxes. >> >>> 2 SPARQL query results formats and possibly multiple presentations of >>> the to-be- defined RDF2RDB mapping language [1]. >> >> I don't think those features increase the cost of implementing data >> consumers. >> >>> 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 ni >>> ce as well. >> >> Yep, that sounds good to me as well. >> >>> Because of GRDDL you could say that the number of RDF-interpretable formats o >>> fficially supported by W3C is endless. I'm not sure which formats a conformin >>> g RDF tool should be required to parse but I think RDF/XML and Turtle should >>> both be on the list. >> >> True. GRDDL does make things interesting. >> >> Thanks for your input.... >> >> -- Sandro >> > > > > -- > http://danny.ayers.name > -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 22:09:33 UTC