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

Re: [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:46:16 -0500
Message-ID: <20110301.134616.1587812478164410095.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: <sandro@w3.org>, <nathan@webr3.org>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Subject: Re: [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:41:11 -0600

> 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

It's turtles all the way down.
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 18:47:11 UTC

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