Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle

On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:05, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:18 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 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.


Hmmm.  I generally agree, but do think it is worth discussing (for a time) minor changes to Turtle before we "just standardize it".

So, +1 to Nathan for starting another fascinating thread that sucked an hour out of my life.


>>> 
>>> 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?


+1 to nice little features, and I'm not scared of (minor!) changes that break BC because there aren't that many Turtle parsers out there.  However, let's not open the floodgates.


> 
>> 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...
> 
> Indeed.

Right.

Regards,
Dave
(co-chair hat *OFF*, Talis hat on)

> 
>   -- Sandro
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> 
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
> 
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
> 
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
> 
> Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg, VA 22408, United States of America.

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:48:24 UTC