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

[RESOLVED] Re: Turtle version naming?

From: Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:51:44 +0100
Message-ID: <5278CDC0.1030303@vu.nl>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Good enough for me.  Thanks.

	--- Jan

On 11/02/2013 10:38 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * 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
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:52:14 UTC

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