> On May 25, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: > > > The compact syntax deliverable was optional; you were quite concearned that any syntax other than turtle would be harmful. > <http://www.w3.org/mid/081b01cfb175$fc157b70$f4407250$@topquadrant.com <http://www.w3.org/mid/081b01cfb175$fc157b70$f4407250$@topquadrant.com>> > Why the change of heart? This was 3 years ago. My main concern at the time was about starting with the compact syntax and nothing else and people assuming that this is THE syntax and it represents the “model” of SHACL. This was the case with RDF/XML serialization and the perception didn’t change until other serializations of RDF became prominent. Given where we are now and that there is RDF syntax and a vocabulary for SHACL, I do not see any issue with also having the compact syntax. Further, during the course of the last 2.5 - 3 years, I have heard various people expressing certain level of interest in the compact syntax for SHACL. I think they should have it, even if I personally may not find it necessary in my own use of SHACL. On May 25, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: There are two problems, whether the parser rejects it and whether human eyes recognize it as a different format (and thus use the right parser). I think ‘.’ vs ‘;’ will standout since these separators will be used so commonly and prominently, but Sandro has a good additional idea to address this.
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 20:44:52 UTC