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