- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:27:39 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > On Mar 2, 2011, at 16:05 , Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>> caveat: super-turtle is needed also >> I looooove that name. We have to do this, just so we can use that >> name. :-) >> > > :-) > >>> 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. >> Why the "absolute minimum change"? Why not add some nice little >> features, time permitting? >> > > Because I want to keep the simplicity of Turtle which is one of its main selling point (for me). I am afraid of us getting into a geeky-engineering cycle that would kill that... indeed, we need to keep B.C. if possible and standardize to give expected functionality across the board. at the same time though, things are very boring when they don't evolve and adapt to their surroundings. The RIF thing you said makes sense, indeed this [second half of 1] would be fun. Both are needed, if only one is on the charter of this group then so be it, it's still progress and good :) [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-Future.html Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:29:38 UTC