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: David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:43:46 -0500
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <61D06CA4-BF62-4EE0-8404-ACF5E07EDFBD@talis.com>
To: <nathan@webr3.org>

On Mar 2, 2011, at 16:34, Nathan wrote:

> David Wood wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 14:32, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> 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.
>> +1.
> 
> okay, so would there be a subset of this which is akin to the turtle we have now?
> 
>>> So far on this list I'm hearing near-consensus that:
>>> 
>>> 1.  This should be done as two separate languages with separate mime
>>> tipes.
> 
> +1
> 
>>> 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."
>> This is all fine with me, but I hope we can explore the possibility of a single standardized Turtle with BC to the existing Turtle before we agree to split into two different standardized syntaxes.
> 
> sorry, confused again - this seems like 3 specs now, because there's the superset-of-current-turtle mentioned in the charter, a subset of that (current-turtle), then you mention explore splitting in to two? are the two you refer to the two I mention here, or another superset above the charter mentioned one?

Sorry, my proposal is to explore whether Turtle+named graphs can be a single spec with BC to the team submission (in which case we produce one spec).  If not, we should pursue the two-spec approach.  OK?

Regards,
Dave



> 
> cheers, nathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:44:21 UTC

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