W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Turtle terse rdf triple language updates

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:26:31 +0000
To: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040325152631.18414e75@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

I've had some good feedback from various people with respect to
Turtle and since the last version I announced on www-rdf-interest
2004-01-19 and I have made a couple of changes since then.

Turtle http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/

The first one was to fix an accidental incompatibility with cwm/n3 in
collections - items in the collection are separated by whitespace,
not commas.  This was my mistake and meant adding a new grammar
term http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/#itemList

The second was a new feature to make OWL constraints much easier to
type; the addition of integer literals.  These are non-negative
decimal integers with an xsd:integer datatype, again matching what
cwm does for such things. This added another new grammar term
http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/#integer

There are test cases for the language in two parts:
1) N-Triples tests
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#ntrip_tests
  linking to
    http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
2) Turtle tests
   http://cvs.ilrt.org/cvsweb/redland/raptor/tests/turtle/

This is all implemented in Raptor in the CVS version available
from http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/raptor/

At this point I feel Turtle has reached a pretty good state of
matching what you want to write down in triples for RDF and OWL
without heading off into more rare cases (other datatypes, long
literals, XML literals) or non-RDF/OWL.

So I think this is as far as I want to go at this point until I get
some more feedback from other implementors.  Then it may be worth
turning into a stable document such as a W3C note via via the
Semantic Web interest group or the SWBD working group.  The
former seems the best choice at this time.

Dave
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 10:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC