- From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:54:42 -0500
- To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTik69PHp30TfzSB+UC=drgbdrAMJQ0Tsq4KFsv2W@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com > wrote: > > > On 02/03/11 15:46, David Wood wrote: > >> +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. >> > > There has been a lot of talk about maintaining already-deployed data. But > there is also the issue of already-deployed code. When there was last a RDF > WG, the deployed base was much smaller, and a substantial part being run by > active developers in semweb technology. > > Nowadays, I contend, there are more existing deployments and they do not > run on the bleeding edge. > > We see question about versions of software several iterations in the past, > and there are good reasons why people do not want to upgrade, or not > upgrade, frequently. If it works - why change it? > > Adding features to Turtle, or anything else, affects the existing software. > Whether there many Turtle parsers or not, there are a significant number of > instances of them. > I agree with this sentiment. The Turtle team submission obviously hit a sweet spot among developers (more expressive, less verbose than N-Triples but not as complex as N3) and has been widely enough implemented that it has become a de facto standard. I think our primary goal should be to standardize that submission as version 1.0 of the language. Any new features, whether they are syntactic sugar or to support graphs/quads, should be considered as either a new version of the language or a different language that is a superset of Turtle. -Alex
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:55:17 UTC