Compact Syntax: Normative exchange syntax or best practice for tools?

To those championing a compact syntax such as ShExC:

I assume there will be a mapping between the compact syntax and a 
triple-based notation. In the case of ShEx, every ShExC document has a 
direct mapping to ShEx RDF triples.

Question: is the intention to make the compact syntax a stand-alone file 
format, or would it be sufficient to define it as a WG note that 
specifies the textual syntax as a surface notation used by tools?

The background of this question is that I think we should limit the 
implementation burden and also avoid fragmentation of the Linked Data 
space. I would feel less nervous about a surface syntax that is 
generated on the fly from RDF triples underneath. An example of that is 
that UML tools produce XMI while the user only sees boxes and arrows. 
Similarly, editing tools could accept something like ShExC but only 
produce triples as the exchange format.

Thanks,
Holger

Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 05:49:28 UTC