W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [TTL] Standardizing N-Triples

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:57:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4D962001.5000700@epimorphics.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 01/04/11 19:00, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:54, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> ACTION-24
>> I've started a draft at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/N-Triples-Format
> I've made an editorial pass over the document, and added the following questions to the end:

Thank you very much.

> * Should "Modifications to N-Triples" mention that
>    relative IRIs are allowed?

When I checked the "RDF Test Cases" edition, I found section 3 says that 
the "absoluteURI ... representing an RDF URI references" so it's 
absolute.  It wasn't stated in the internal WG doc.

[[ Minor:
The Turtle test suite (test 29, a positive test) has an illegal URI in 
it and illegal N-triples to go with it.

Are there examples of real worlds data that uses relative IRIs in 
N-triples?  If not, we could decide that theer is no base processing in 
RDF-triples, absolute IRIs only.

> * Comments in N-Triples have to be on their own line,
>    in Turtle they can be on a line that also has non-WS
>    content. RDF-Triples should follow N-Triples?

Good point - missed that.

> * In N-Triples, a triple can't be split over multiple
>    lines, and one line can't have multiple triples. In
>    Turtle, both are allowed. RDF-Triples should follow
>    N-Triples?

Again, good point.

> Best,
> Richard

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 18:57:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:05 UTC