- From: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:47:07 -0700
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Hi Jeremy, If the current N-TRIPLE syntax is able to represent all the data we want to represent, and most (if not all) tools are already accepting the current syntax, then why do we introduce another form and run the risk of incompatibility? Thanks, Zhe On 8/18/2011 3:26 PM, 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") >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 15:47:37 UTC