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: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:52:43 -0400
To: Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Wouter Beek <wouter@triply.cc>, 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>
Message-ID: <26befcbe-306a-3bc4-1f3c-ee0e4491bca6@dbooth.org>
On 07/03/2017 09:50 AM, Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> On 07/03/2017 03:26 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> 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.
> I know that. I only do not see why we want to make our non-canonical
> triples as non-canonical as possible and as close as possible to being
> ambiguous rather than enforcing current practice that makes the triples
> more readable, easier to process and allows for better error messages.
> I.e., where is the benefit of doing so?

If I'm following your line of thinking, it sounds like you are saying 
that we should only have defined *Canonical N-Triples* language, and not 
defined N-Triples, because Canonical N-Triples is easy to generate by 
machine, and if you are hand writing triples then they can be parsed as 
Turtle anyway (since N-Triples is a subset of Turtle).  Thus, the 
(non-canonical) N-Triples language is unnecessary.

Interesting and fair point.  I wonder what would break if we deprecated 
N-Triples in favor of Canonical N-Triples.

David Booth
Received on Monday, 3 July 2017 14:53:16 UTC

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