- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:26:55 +0000
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 12 Mar 2011, at 18:50, Nathan wrote: > Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> I've updated the TF-Turtle/Proposals page: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Turtle/Proposals > > The SuperTurtle proposal appears to be nothing more than specifically defining additional sugar and RDFa like profiles as out of scope? Surely these are bolt on considerations for any serialization and not a separate unique proposal that can only be considered as such? “SuperTurtle” is indeed a separate unique proposal because it has very different implications for implementors, backwards compatibility, and WG workload. There is also the looming question of charter scope. The discussions that would need to happen to make “SuperTurtle” a REC are different from those required to make “plain Turtle” a REC. Best, Richard > > Best, > > Nathan
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2011 19:27:31 UTC