W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:32:04 -0500
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1299094324.2169.191.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 18:55 +0000, Nathan wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Okay, I'm lost, as to what's what and what is in scope, out of scope, 
> possible and not.
> 
> Is B.C. for turtle (data and consumers) to be maintained?
> 
> Are Quads to be adopted?
>   - for turtle? (trig?)
>   - for some kind of qurtle?
>   - for some kind of super-turtle?
>   - for n-triples?
>   - would quads change the semantics? just the concepts?
>   - quads = named g-box, or just some "spare" 4th param?
> 
> Is it even possible for us to do something not the same as current 
> turtle? (charter wise)

Yes.   Specifically, the charter says:

        Standardize the Turtle RDF Syntax.... Either that syntax or a
        related syntax should also support multiple graphs and graph
        stores.... This work should take into account the 14 January
        2008 Turtle Syntax document, N3, TriG, and the SPARQL Query
        Language syntax.
        
So far on this list I'm hearing near-consensus that:

1.  This should be done as two separate languages with separate mime
tipes.

2.  The first, our standard version of Turtle, should be very
conservative, inside the space of nearly all existing turtle documents
and software.  All we're doing on this is dealing with tricky edge cases
like "18."

3.  We should have a different syntax, with a different mime-type, for
handling [GRAPHS] in a Turtle-like language. 

If that's true, the next big issue is whether this second syntax is (as
Ivan proposed) just Turtle plus the minimum needed to handle extra
graphs (TriG?), or whether (since we don't have nearly as much BC to
worry about) we should take the opportunity to add some extra stuff
here.

[the rest of your email has good stuff, but I don't have time to respond
at the moment.]

    -- Sandro

 


> If we can't change turtle, and can't do super-turtle or qurtle, why and 
> how can we even discuss graphs of any form?
> 
> Syntax sugar like ^ prefix, in scope?
> 
> Quoted Graphs, in scope?
>   - if yes, what to they resolve to in the RDF semantics? how would that 
> work?
> 
> Graph Literals?
>   - what's the difference between quoted graphs?
> 
> variables?
> 
> changes to the semantics?
>   - if no, can changes like g-box be introduced without being in the 
> semantics?
> 
> changes to the concepts?
>   - if yes, what about B.C. with RDF/XML? existing deployed data and 
> processors? how can they change but the semantics not?
> 
> align turtle with sparql?
>   - if yes, how without variables, subject literals and all the other bits?
> 
> Sorry, I feel like we need to know what definitely cannot happen, what 
> definitely can and what's a grey area, for this WG.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC