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

Re: [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:41:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6D3DC7.7040609@epimorphics.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 01/03/11 17:15, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> I think there's a parent-issue here, which we should perhaps raise and
> even decide first, of whether we're going to be extending turtle now,
> making a superset which will not work in existing turtle parsers.
> Alternatively, we could nail down the Turtle that is already widely
> deployed.  I guess the issue might be called "Extend Turtle Before
> Rec?".
>
> I'm torn on this issue.  On the one hand, there's a big deployed base,
> to which we have a responsibility.  On the other hand, there a lot more
> that can be done to make Turtle useful.   For myself, I lean towards
> saying "no", considering Turtle more or less done, and letting
> extensions happen in other languages.
>
> If we say "no", then our work is much simpler; we're basically operating
> inside the space of existing good faith implementations.

Good points - I think we definitely need to do "existing turtle" and 
maybe "superTurtle" so at least keep it as two strands.

It's only really possible to see if superTurtle is a good idea when all 
the features are defined so we can see the interactions.  That takes 
time so it's not a good idea to depend on that as the outcome.

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 18:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC