- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:38:52 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Sandro Hawke wrote: > So, yes, I agree we should follow deployment experience where we have > it. But I think it's also okay, once in a while, to standardize ahead > of the market, if we have no other good options. Yup, I agree with the sentiments you're trying to get across here, and would say that if people do want graph literal support in some way, then I'd suggest it should be part of the syntax (e.g. quoted graphs), otherwise we're going to end up with a turtle doc which contains a literal string of rdf/xml, and people will need both parsers just to consume it (or the inverse), there could be much confusion over which prefixes apply where, and so forth, which doesn't appear to be a great recipe for interop. That said, there appears to be some pushback (although I can't see the precise reasons for that pushback), and ultimately no feature is really worth having a couple of years of in-fighting and bikeshedding over. Best, Nathan
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 14:40:32 UTC