- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:48:44 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 5 Mar 2011, at 22:59, Steve Harris wrote: >> If we had made N-Quads syntactically disjoint from N-Triples, then we'd get the situation where a system that only supports N-Triples rejects an N-Quads file that has has “DEFAULT” at the end of every line. > > Good! That means something else than a file full of triples. Well, depending on how you squint, both encode a set of triples in an unnamed graph. > If I send LOAD <http://foo.example/file> to a SPARQL Update store that doesn't load into the default graph, but N-Quads with DEFAULT on the end would, I hope. Hm, that's a good point. >>> I also regard N-Triples as a "small-scale" format. >> >> Why? Its advantages over Turtle (easy to grep/sed, easy to parse with O(1) memory, easy to merge) seem to be relevant for large files but not for small ones. > > It's very cheap to generate, compared to Turtle. Useful if you're doing a lot of small imports, e.g. metadata, and data from web crawls. > > If you're generating one Turtle file with 20 triples in, and importing it, the cost isn't significant. But, if you generating 200 files per second, each with 20 triples, scattered across a big cluster, it all adds up. > > We do also use SPARQL Update (which is pretty TriG like), but a HTTP PUTable syntax is easier for us to work with when there's only a single graph being updated in one operation. Thanks. These are quite compelling arguments against the proposal “Unify N-Triples and N-Quads into a single format with same media type”. I'm still not convinced that N-Quads being a syntactic superset of N-Triples is a bad idea. Best, Richard > > - Steve > > -- > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited > 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK > +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ > Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 > Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD >
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 23:50:20 UTC