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

Re: Turtle version naming?

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 17:38:33 -0400
To: Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>
Cc: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20131102213832.GB13691@w3.org>
* Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl> [2013-04-19 16:12+0200]
> Hi,
> 
> While planning to sync SWI-Prolog's Turtle support with the draft, I was
> wondering about version naming.  If I understand the current state
> correctly, the draft is fully upward compatible with the
> `traditional'
> Turtle, so there is not really an issue for reading turtle documents.
> 
> When writing however, it may be wise to be able to save in the old
> version.  I'm planning to have either some global application
> setting
> or an extra argument to specify the version, but I have no clue how to
> name the version.
> 
> Also, documents may want to claim they are traditional or `new'.  Is
> there something that takes care of that?

On 30 October 2013, we resolved that
[[
We'll use names like "RDF 1.1 Turtle" for Turtle, TriG, N-Triples,
N-Quads. Okay to informally call it "Turtle 1.1" but formally it's
"RDF 1.1 Turtle".
]] — <https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-30#resolution_6>

The editor's draft now has the title "RDF 1.1 Turtle". I think this
issue is resolved. If you agree, please reply with the subject
prefixed by "[RESOLVED]".


> 	Thanks --- Jan
> 

-- 
-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 Saturday, 2 November 2013 21:39:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:58 UTC