Re: [Turtle] Two formats

On 3/2/2011 5:13 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2011, at 19:32, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 2.  The first, our standard version of Turtle, should be very
>> conservative, inside the space of nearly all existing turtle documents
>> and software.
>
> +1
>
>> 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.
>
> Adding extra stuff? I'd actually propose the opposite: Let's throw some stuff out from the [GRAPHS] format.
>
> At the moment, I see multi-graph formats used mainly to exchange dumps between SPARQL stores. Hence I see this as the main use case to address.
>
> We've learned from N-Triples that line-based formats are great for exchanging dumps.
>
> So, let's take N-Triples and add an optional 4th element to deal with [GRAPHS]. A la N-Quads [1], but being explicit about what the 4th element is. Also add some other good bits along the lines Andy suggested elsewhere (UTF-8, base URI, proper media type). And declare victory.

We use TriG all the time for configuring systems, some of which is often 
done by hand. As such, N-triples + named graphs would notbe sufficient; 
we require a human-friendly quads serialization, such as TriG.

Lee

>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> [1] http://sw.deri.org/2008/07/n-quads/
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> [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 Thursday, 3 March 2011 11:23:00 UTC