W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

RE: N3 and N-Triples (was: RDF in HTML: Approaches)

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 20:08:59 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c20b32$1e50b030$887ba8c0@mitchum>

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Aaron,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:me@aaronsw.com] 
>
> On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 11:59  AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> 
> > Registering your digust at Patrick's post as labelling it 
> as FUD I'm 
> > sure is duly noted, but is unfair and FUD of it's own kind. 
> Patrick is 
> > right and he isn't spreading FUD.
> 
> I don't think that's so clear cut. Patrick wrote:
> 
> > I would, thus, not like to see any N3 or NTriples used as
> > primary representations for RDF that are interchanged by real
> > systems. 
> 
> This is a personal opinion.

Yes it is.


> Certainly 
> it'd be very far from being a standard or even a draft standard
> in  something like IETF process. Second, it's unclear that
> "standard"  formats are the keys to success. The Web took off
> using an HTML which  was specified mostly informally and began to
> stagnate when 
> the W3C tried to standardize it.

I called you out on a FUD accusation, not to discuss
standardization in the large. I read your post, and I reread
Patrick's. I still don't see the FUD.
 

> Back to Bill:
> 
> > The syntax draft is entitled "RDF/XML Syntax Specification 
> (Revised)" 
> > and there is this note in the Test Case draft re N-Triples 
> in Section 
> > 3:
> >
> > [[
> > NOTE: N-Triples is not an user RDF syntax - it is intended for
> > RDF  Core WG testing purposes and checking RDF applications for
> conformance 
> > with the specifications. ]]]
> 
> Sure, it's not for users to write but it's for software to
> output.   

That's not a crucial distinction, RDF syntaxes persuadably being
targeted at computers in any case. But this is a red-herring.
N-Triples is clearly not /intended/ to be an interchange format. 

You said: "N-Triples is the only decent standardized interchange
format for RDF". Now, by the criteria you mentioned, N-Triples
isn't a standard. By RDF-Core's, it's not a interchange format. 
That's not to say N-Triples or N3 aren't good interchange formats,
or can't be de facto standards. For the record, I wouldn't describe
what you said as FUD either.

Incidentally, I think we agree re syntax and curtailing adoption,
which is good (sometimes I think I'm missing something obvious on
that matter and await enlightenment). Otherwise, I suggest Patrick
has points that can't be dismissed as mere FUD and require a more
reasoned response.

Bill de hÓra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPPu+yeaWiFwg2CH4EQIZsgCfX0uQOYUoEPdBdnUP6cRbX9i6ukYAnR8A
ppCSVruyL/ij0HnTSP3vQkew
=tcW1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 15:13:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT