- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:45:09 +0530
- To: David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 1 Apr 2011, at 23:07, David Wood wrote: > The WG has expressed an interest in changing Turtle very, very little. Right. > That alone makes this proposal interesting enough to discuss. I conclude the opposite! Turning Turtle from a single-graph triple format to a multi-graph quad format is a *much* bigger change than any syntactic tweaks or extensions. A fundamental change to the underlying data model of the existing media types (Turtle, RDF/XML) means that the changes won't be limited to the parser, but entire APIs and storage engines have to be rebuilt, not to mention the hairy webarch implications around authoritativeness. I strongly believe that all quad/multigraph formats should get new, fresh media types. (Maybe I'm just mishearing what you said Dave. My point is that once we add "@graph" or "<...> { ... }" or any other form of multi-graph support, we should no longer talk of making changes to Turtle, but we are making a new format. If there's any doubt about that, then it's important to raise a new ISSUE for this.) Best, Richard > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 13:19, Nathan wrote: > >> Hi Lee, >> >> Nothing I guess, other than lending to a single, simple, coherent specification and single format which supports virtually all use-cases needed. >> >> That said, I also see many benefits in keeping two distinct formats (such as TriG and Turtle), since I /really really really/ don't want to be following my nose around the web to documents containing quads or multiple graphs, and perhaps selfishly, don't really want the pain that will induce in API land. >> >> So, although I suggested it and would maintain that it may well be easier for newcomers to understand than TriG or N-Quads, I really don't like the idea of having a single format myself :D and see anything Quad or Multiple Graph as being related to data store synchronization and data dumps, rather than to RDF. >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >> >> Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>> Hi Nathan, >>> What would be the benefit of inventing something like this compared to using TriG which is similar in spirit and already in (some) use? >>> Lee >>> On 4/1/2011 12:10 PM, Nathan wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Just a quick, mini proposal wrt supporting multiple "named graphs" in >>>> turtle. >>>> >>>> We could add a new keyword and directive, @graph (or @namespace), who's >>>> value was an IRI. This would be a minimal change to the grammar, for >>>> example: >>>> >>>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . >>>> @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> . >>>> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> . >>>> >>>> # default graph >>>> <http://example.org/bob> dc:publisher "Bob" . >>>> <http://example.org/alice> dc:publisher "Alice" . >>>> >>>> @graph <http://example.org/bob> . >>>> _:a foaf:name "Bob" . >>>> _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:bob@oldcorp.example.org> . >>>> >>>> @graph <http://example.org/alice> . >>>> _:a foaf:name "Alice" . >>>> _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@work.example.org> . >>>> >>>> I believe it's pretty self explanatory, so will spare getting in to any >>>> heavy details, other than a couple of basic questions: >>>> >>>> - What would the scope of @prefix and @base declarations be? >>>> (either no change / file wide, or with a scope of the nearest "@graph") >>>> >>>> - Would the value be an IRI, or an absolute-IRI? >>>> (my own preference would be the latter). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Nathan >>>> >>>> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 18:15:55 UTC