Re: [Turtle] Existing data , existing code.

Alex Hall wrote:
> 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.

likewise, I come from a land where BC breaks are boolean, either broken 
or not, no grey areas, if you break it, you make the break worth it, and 
imho, if it is broken, then that's Not-Turtle or Turtle2.

cheers,

nathan

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:06:02 UTC