RE: Moving forward with ISSUE-30 (IRI template expansion)

On 19 Aug 2014 at 12:42, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> 
>> No, but you were actively involved in these discussions and provided a
lot
>> of very valuable thoughts. So I want to make sure to get your feedback
>> before sending out another call for consensus.
> 
> Shout out to you for doing a great job listening to everybody here!
> 
>> Yeah, that's true. That's also what worries me about this approach but
>> apparently that's what the majority of the group wants. So my idea was to
>> explicitly mention that it is *simplified* Turtle (and thus not standard
>> Turtle) and explicitly call out the differences to the Turtle spec.
> 
> The strange thing about "simplified Turtle" is that
> it is *incompatible* with "full Turtle", which is unexpected.
> Sure, "simplified Turtle" parsers would not be able to parse "full
Turtle",
> but the other way around is non-intuitive. The name is therefore
inappropriate.

That's true and one of the reasons I would actually prefer to get rid of
those Turtle artifacts.. Anyway I asked a while ago to add those angle
brackets to make it compatible with Turtle. Unfortunately no one commented
that.



> The proper term would actually be
> "non-escaped N-Triples literal syntax with bracketless IRIs"

:-)

 
> "The corresponding RDF lexical form is the characters between the
delimiters,
>  <del>after processing any escape sequences</del>.
>  If present, the language tag is preceded by a '@'.
>  If there is no language tag, there may be a datatype IRI, preceded by
'^^'." [1]
> I would just maybe non-normatively refer in the spec that the meaning of
'@' and '^^'
> has been borrowed from Turtle/N-Triples, but call it something else.
> 
> Bear in mind that this could also be very confusing to readers:
> "Do my parameters have to be simplified Turtle is my document is JSON-LD?"

Good point.


>>> - TypedRepresentation (because we distinguish between literals and URIs)
>> 
>> I don't like this as much as I fear people will have a quick look,
recognize
>> it as Turtle and move on.
> 
> Even worse with "simplified Turtle".

Perhaps.


>> I personally feel better to explicitly acknowledge
>> that it is *based* on Turtle but not truly Turtle. Does this makes sense
to you?
> 
> Not too much. The only thing it borrows is the meaning of '@' and '^^',
> there is no other relationship whatsoever.

We seem to get stuck here. Any suggestions how we could move forward? (this
is a question for everyone)


> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 12:27:30 UTC