- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:09:27 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 3 Mar 2011, at 21:56, Steve Harris wrote: >>> I don't think you can argue that users have one firm expectation for the handling of N-Triples and a different firm expectation for N-Quads. >> I really can. The usecases for those file formats are significantly different. > > I dispute that. I believe that both are mostly used for exchanging large RDF dumps (ignoring the use of N-Triples for test cases). N-Triples could become quite significant for real time triple streams, live updates, and live (single) resource/graph synchronization. It would be nice if N-Quads was a superset of N-Triples, but N-Triples being a distinct thing with it's own media type would also be an easy, beneficial, hit. I don't see any reason to argue here, there are people saying they need both, and for one to be distinct (triple only), why not provide it.
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 18:11:39 UTC