Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

Danny Ayers wrote:
> 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

Yes, a la TriG (http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/TriG/), which 
would be my number 1 choice if W3C were to bless a specification of 
another RDF(-related) syntax.

But really, I'm not so sure the lack of blessing on these various 
alternative syntaxes has been too big an interoperability headache.... 
has it?

Lee

> 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
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 01:25:12 UTC