W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > December 2013

Re: N-Triples - Please encourage ntriples tools to emit *canonical* N-Triples

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:19:50 +0000
Message-ID: <52A1A4C6.5030504@apache.org>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
(not an official response)


It is too late in the spec cycle to introduce SHOULD/MUST language -- it 
is asking implementers to read the spec differently to the LC, CR versions.

What I will suggest to the WG is making the description of canonical 
N-Triples a separate section, not just a subpart of the conformance section.

While this is "editorial" - it's the same text, just moved and reworded 
if it didn't read correctly any more - we are very close to the 
transition to PR so I feel it needs to be discussed by the WG.

Draft in editors working draft.


On 03/12/13 22:41, David Booth wrote:
> Regarding section 4, Conformance:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html
> It would be helpful if tools that generate N-Triples were strongly
> encouraged to generate it in canonical form unless there would be a
> significant loss to the user in doing so.  For example, if a tool
> normally generates useful information in comments, it may be better to
> generate non-canonical N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples would
> require the comments to be removed.
> I suggest adding something like the following to section 4:
>    "Tools that generate N-Triples documents SHOULD generate
>    **canonical N-Triples documents** unless doing so would
>    result in a significant loss in functionality or performance.
>    For example, if a tool normally generates useful information
>    in comments, it may be preferable to generate non-canonical
>    N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples requires comments to be
>    removed."
> Please note that the RDF 2119 definition of SHOULD is:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> [[
> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>     may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>     particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>     carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> ]]
> Because SHOULD allows this judgement-call-based wiggle room, this change
> would not have to affect any conformance tests.
> If the working group decides that a "SHOULD" would be too strong, please
> instead add an editorial comment to the above effect instead, such as by
> saying "are strongly encouraged to" instead of "SHOULD".
> Thanks,
> David
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 10:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:44 UTC