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

* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2014-12-05 15:46+1000]
> 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?

It was certainly the intention that it be an altervative view to RDF
triples. If you go to
<http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/GenX/schema.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-pass-date.ttl>
and View as: Resource Shapes, you'll get an idea of the mapping.


> 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
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 06:58:07 UTC