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

On 2011-09-30, at 01:24, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> 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.

Another strong +1

Additionally there are significant issues to handling files which may contain triples, or quads, but you can't tell at the point you begin the parse.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
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 10:40:42 UTC