W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [Turtle] Two formats

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:58:45 +0000
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DCC5689D-CF1D-46EC-9198-C86130F5D5CA@cyganiak.de>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Lee,

On 4 Mar 2011, at 20:03, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> 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

Right.

> ...we tend to choose it as our default format for just about everything.

Ok, thanks for the details. I see why you definitely want to see a TriG-like format as one of the results of this standardization process.

I'm still concerned that TriG has been around for seven years, and only seen a handful of users, and most if not all of them seem to use it only as an internal format within a single system. It is not used as an exchange format.

Best,
Richard




> 
> 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 Saturday, 5 March 2011 15:00:20 UTC

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