W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2017

Re: Proposed fixed version of N-Triples https://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/ Section 7

From: Wouter Beek <wouter@triply.cc>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:54:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEh2WcPtaVANK50VjHfQEVjdc3Cd_Vq2-fCkrXKfHgJs=TELeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Hi Richard, others,


> The N-Triples document defines two languages: “N-Triples” and “Canonical
> N-Triples”. The latter requires a single space between RDF terms and does
> not permit comments, and is reasonably well-suited to processing with
> line-based text tools. Producers are encouraged to produce Canonical
> N-Triples.


True, but for a data consumer it is not possible to determine whether a
document is formatted in canonical or in non-canonical N-Triples (except by
fully parsing the document).

Canonical and non-canonical N-Triples advertise the same Media Type in HTTP
Content-Type headers and have the same extension in file names.  It's nice
when data publishers use the canonical N-Triples format, but since the data
consumer cannot anticipate that this is actually the case, this does not
make the situation easier for her in practice.

---
Best regards,
Wouter Beek.

Email: wouter@triply.cc
WWW: http://triply.cc
Tel: +31647674624
Received on Monday, 3 July 2017 13:56:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:52 UTC