Re: Oracle's stand regarding N-TRIPLES

Hi Zhe

in the RDF Core WG we invented N-Triples specifically scoping it as a 
format for test cases.
This motivated the ascii only constraint, to make it easy for us 
somewhat ignorant people to get our heads around it, (at this time Jena, 
which I was also working on, had very elementary defects to do with 
encodings). We also made an explicit decision to not recommend it. We wrote:

[[
*NOTE*: N-Triples is an RDF syntax for expressing RDF test cases and 
defining the correspondence between RDF/XML and the RDF abstract syntax. 
RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ref-rdf-syntax>] is the recommended 
syntax for applications to exchange RDF information.
]]

Now, had if it been rec tracked at that time,  we would have had review 
comments such as
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-UniqueEncoding
[[
[S] When a unique encoding is mandated, the encoding MUST be UTF-8, 
UTF-16 or UTF-32.
]]

This was the consensus at that time, and is now recommended
http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-UniqueEncoding

So ... the proposal to base N triples on UTF-8 is not introducing 
another form, but completing work on N Triples that this group has been 
chartered to do.

....

 From a procedural point of view, it seems that one way we will get a 
formal objection from Oracle, and the other we will get a formal 
objection from I18N

Jeremy




On 8/19/2011 8:47 AM, Zhe Wu wrote:
> 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