- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:03:13 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 3/3/2011 9:26 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 3 Mar 2011, at 11:22, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >> 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. > > I'd like to hear more about real-world use of TriG. We use TriG for: + small, hand-written configuration files + small, system-generated configuration files + ontology exports + small and large data set exports + bundling applications for deployment between environments + custom RDF generation from 3rd party scripts & apps for import into Anzo + ... Basically, it's Anzo's format of choice for any serialization of RDF. Given that: a) All RDF within Anzo is within a named graph b) We find TriG to be far more human-friendly than something like N-quads ...we tend to choose it as our default format for just about everything. Lee > > Here's what I'm aware of: > > 1. As examples for NG4J/WIQA (this is what we created TriG for) > 2. As a language for expressing spreadsheet-to-RDF mappings in XLWrap > 3. As a syntax for configuration files (?) in your system. > 4. As a “graph store persistence” format in the Semantic Web Client Library and derived systems > > None of these require exchange between different systems. They're all about local storage or configuration. If the use cases for human-written TriG boil down to configuration files, then I'm unconvinced that this WG should put a format on REC track for that. > > N-Quads on the other hand is used quite often to exchange dumps between different parties (DBpedia publishes N-Quads; the Billion Triples dataset is available as N-Quads; Sindice can process N-Quad dumps). > > So I see a clear case for standardizing a multi-graph dump format, but not such a clear case for standardizing a multi-graph “small-scale” format a la SuperTurtle or TriG. > > Best, > Richard > > > >> >> 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 Friday, 4 March 2011 20:03:54 UTC