RE: Data in turtle syntax



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Birte Glimm
> Sent: 09 October 2009 14:29
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Data in turtle syntax
> 
> Hi all,
> for the entailment regimes we discussed whether it would be
> possible/sensible to allow other syntaxes than RDF XML for the queried
> data. 

The syntax does not matter. It's abstract data model of triples in a graph that matters.  How they came to be there is not important.  RDF/XML, Turtle, GRDDL, RDFa, API inserts, private syntax, - all the same.  SPARQL/Query does not get involved (a FROM is a HTTP GET and there is content negotiation).

It's triples all the way down.

 Andy


> A natural choice apart from RDF XML that is not specific to
> certain entailment regimes would be turtle syntax. Can I already
> specify my RDF data in turtle and query that in accordance with the
> spec? If not in accordance with the spec, do systems support turtle
> input?
> This is obviously not normative. Any system might reject non-RDF XML
> input, but many systems might happily take it.
> If not even turtle is allowed, are there any plans for doing that as
> an optional syntax?
> For other entailment regimes other syntaxes might also be useful,
> e.g., functional style syntax or OWL XML for systems that support some
> form of OWL entailment. All OWL syntaxes can easily be converted into
> RDF XML, so one could live with purely RDF XML, only RIF would be in
> trouble since RIF cannot be represented in RDF XML.
> Birte
> 
> --
> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
> Computing Laboratory
> Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283529

Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 13:50:53 UTC