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