Re: On Graphis in Turtle (was Re: today's minutes available)

On 9/29/2011 9:41 AM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
> Hello Again,
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 23:45, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I was on a cellphone driving and it was too noisy for me to voice my
>> opinion then but I meant to say that, regarding the Graphs in Turtle
>> question, I find the @graph proposal more appealing than the {} one. I
>> think it is more consistent with what we already have in Turtle.
>>
>> It might sound silly but on a practical level I also find it
>> convenient to
>> be able to add an @graph statement in my existing document without having
>> to re-indent all the following lines the way I would with the {}
>> proposal.
>> I know that's not necessarily a high priority criteria but at the same
>> time Turtle was invented to make it easy for humans to write and read rdf
>> so I'd argue it's not totally off base either.
>
> Personally, I would rather not invent new things, and stick with one of
> the existing quad based serialisations, i.e. TriG or N-Quads.

A strong strong +1 to this. I have a vested interest in TriG, but even 
if that weren't to be the group's consensus, I strongly favor choosing 
something that exists and is widely implemented than inventing anything 
new. At the most I'd consider extensions to the existing systems, such 
that existing documents remain valid, but anything more would have to 
have clear and substantial benefit to be worth the cost of this group 
inventing something new.

Lee

> @graph, would imply that you could have a document with loads of triples
> to start with (seemingly Turtle) and then you would all of a sudden come
> across an "@graph <http://foo.example/>" like statement, and you would
> suddenly have to start parsing quads, this makes me feel slightly
> uncomfortable.
>
> Mischa
>>
>> Finally, although I don't know what actually triggered Sandro's question
>> about whether the file contains the complete graph or not, it seems to me
>> that the {} proposal makes it look like what I'm seeing is the complete
>> graph when it may not be. I know it's up to us to define that there is no
>> such implication but I'd rather select a syntax that is more intuitive
>> and
>> less likely to mislead a casual reader/user who may not have read the
>> spec
>> carefully enough.
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com
>> <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com>>
>> To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-rdf-wg@w3.org>>
>> Date: 09/28/2011 09:21 AM
>> Subject: today's minutes available
>> Sent by: public-rdf-wg-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-rdf-wg-request@w3.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-28
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> Mischa Tuffield PhD
> Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com <mailto:mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
> Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
> +44(0)208 439 8200 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 Friday, 30 September 2011 00:25:03 UTC