- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:45:45 +0100
- To: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Message-Id: <43D250BA-4167-4FA6-826E-017DBE800116@garlik.com>
Internally we call it .nt8, FWIW. There's some appeal to just letting N-Triples rot and fall out of use, and replacing it with something more modern. On the other hand we have enough RDF syntaxes already. - Steve On 2011-08-19, at 10:26, Ian Davis wrote: > One option could be to leave ntriples where it is and give the utf8 version a new name and put it on the REC track. U-Triples? (Maybe go further to U-Quads) > > On 19 Aug 2011 10:18, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: > > I agree with Jeremy. > > > > For us, the lack of UTF-8 support is a serious impediment to using N-Triples as a bulk dump/restore format. > > > > We use UTF-8 internally to hold RDF literals, as every other format is natively UTF-8, so the export to N-Triples requires a lot of unnecessary and inefficient escaping. > > > > - Steve > > > > On 2011-08-18, at 23:26, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > >> Hi Zhe > >> > >> I find this a surprisingly strong position. > >> When ingesting N-Triples the code path to read UTF-8 and the code path to read \uXXXX escape sequences are probably equally horrible. The UTF-8 code path is the more conventional one to be following on the Web. > >> > >> It seems like a fairly small amount of extra code for a vendor to support, with negligible impact on performance. The only downside, that I can see, would be that new data will not be readable by old software, which is the normal downside with new versions of a format. > >> > >> We may differ in our judgment about how important that downside is, or I may have missed some other disadvantage that motivates Oracle's strong reaction. > >> > >> My understanding is that 2004 N-triples docs will be valid turtle docs .... > >> > >> Jeremy > >> > >> > >> > >> On 8/18/2011 9:05 AM, Zhe Wu wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> After discussing with the whole Oracle Database Semantic Technologies team, we > >>> have the following consensus within Oracle. > >>> > >>> 1) The existing N-TRIPLES format [1] is key to Oracle's product; > >>> 2) Oracle hasn't received from Oracle's customers any change request/suggestions regarding the current N-TRIPLES syntax; > >>> 3) As a platform vendor, Oracle does not see any significant justifications to change/mend the existing syntax; > >>> > >>> Hence Oracle will not support any major changes to the existing N-TRIPLE format, including > >>> support for UTF-8. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Zhe& Souri > >>> > >>> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples (In "RDF Test Cases: W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004") > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited > > 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK > > +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ > > Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 > > Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD > > > > -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 09:46:14 UTC