Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle

On Mar 2, 2011, at 15:10 , Nathan wrote:

> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> On 3/2/2011 5:15 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-01, at 17:04, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> As a _personal view_ I would be very cautious in adding new things
>>>> to Turtle. What we should do is to standardize a widely used
>>>> language and we should be careful not to require existing parser
>>>> deployments to do additional development. If there are ambiguities
>>>> and errors (eg, the issue of "18." vs "18 .") these of course
>>>> should be fixed but we should be very careful in going beyond
>>>> that.
>>> 
>>> Very strong +1.
>>> 
>>> It is my firm belief that working groups should standardise common
>>> practice. The alternative is working groups that drag on for years,
>>> and tend to produce recs that are not as useful as they should be.
>> My experiences and beliefs align with what Steve and Ivan say here.
>> ("+1")
> 
> possibly surprisingly, +1 also.
> 
> caveat: super-turtle is needed also

That is not clear to me either. We probably need something like TrIG if we find the right ways for the graph identification, and we would probably give it a different name and a different media type to differentiate it from Turtle. But I would advocate for the absolute minimum changes necessary for graph identification.

As I said before, alas, the rule part of n3 is _not_ in our charter, ie, we should not do that. This should be done in a RIF related group to reconcile it with RIF semantics and, unfortunately, we do not have the manpower for that at this moment...

Ivan



----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf