- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:30:15 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 03/03/11 07:21, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2011-03-02, at 17:31, Nathan wrote: > >> Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> Andy, On 28 Feb 2011, at 20:36, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> A data-format N-triples / N-Quads would be a subset of Turtle, >>>> with the same IRI resolution rules and same syntax for IRI >>>> tokens. And in UTF-8. >>>> >>>> As these formats are used as dump formats, pinning down >>>> details would be a help to data publishers and consumers. >>>> >>>> A MIME type which is not text/plain would be helpful. >>> I think having a proper spec for this “N-Triples done right” is >>> a great plan, including support for quads, IRI resolution, >>> UTF-8, and proper media type. However I wouldn't necessarily see >>> it as a subset of Turtle. I'd prefer for Turtle to remain as it >>> is defined now, as a triples-only format without >>> multigraphs/quads. >> >> quads != triples surely, perhaps there needs to be two then, >> N-Triples and N-Quads. > > Agreed. I don't like the idea of having formats in the wild which > might reasonably be expected to contain triples, or quads and there > being no easy way to tell before you start parsing it. Additionally, > the ease of parsing is the main selling point of N-T/Q, and no > knowing if there will be 3 or 4 columns makes it trickier. +1 here as well. POSTing to a graph can only be triples. GETting triples, you know you can put them in a graph in a dataset. It is unclear what to do if you start getting quads part way through. N-Quads serializes a datasets, default graph is no 4th field. N-triples serializes a graph. > FWIW, N-Quads seems quite popular for data.gov.uk data, and > N-Triples/N-Quads are good lowest common denominator formats, for > bulk dumps and the like. I can imagine N-triples only parsing to get a small footprint. Turtle isn't technically complicated but neither is it trivial to parse. > I would like to see an update to make UTF-8 legal though, and some > clarity on BASE URI resolution. > > - Steve Andy
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 10:31:01 UTC