[ALL] Finalizing Turtle (was Re: [ALL] agenda 7 March telecon)

Hi all,

+1 to Andy's proposal to finalize Turtle.  Guus, Ivan, Sandro and I discussed this today and decided to make this the focus of the WG telecons today and Wed, 14 March (next week).

Some other comments are below.


On Mar 7, 2012, at 05:59, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 07/03/12 03:40, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 17:38 +0100, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>> See
>>> 
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.07
>> 
>> I wonder if there's any more we can do to get Turtle to Last Call as
>> soon as possible.   (like addressing Henry's comment about dots in
>> names).  And anything else (like .genid) that's pretty much done.
> 
> +1 : good point.
> 
> Maybe next-steps could be:
> 
> 1/ Editors happy with the state of the doc for WG review
> 2/ WG review (I offer to review)
> 3/ Publish!
> 
> I'm happy to review either now, before editorial completion, or later when it's close to LC form, which ever helps the editors most.
> 
> == Tests
> 
> Test work can be in parallel to the doc; it would be good to have the tests ready around LC; I know they are already being used.
> 
> They need review coverage.  There needs to be additions for escape coverage and for plain literal/xsd:string at least.
> 
> Some test aren't passable by a parser that checks IRIs.  e.g. test-29.
> 
> The test are going to be important for Turtle.
> 
> 
> W3C have a specific license for tests:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-license
> 
> which includes:
> """No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is granted pursuant to this license."""
> i.e. you can't change the tests and claim compliance!
> 
> == A quick skim of the doc
> 
> There are various issues marked in the document. Some look out-of-date and all must go for LC.
> 
> Scanning the doc I see:
> 
> ISSUE-4: Do we depecate N-Triples and use Turtle instead?
> (no!)


ISSUE-4 has worked out a bit differently than originally stated.  Section 10.1 of the Turtle draft says, "A future version of this document is expected to define N-Triples." and links to ISSUE-4.

While I agree with Andy that we should *not* depecate N-Triples in favor of Turtle, I *do* think that the Turtle document should formally define N-Triples.  That still needs to be done.


> 
> ISSUE-12:
> This is closed
> 
> ISSUE-67: \xxxx escaping in prefixed names
> Can we close this?  It's now "just" editing.
> 
> "Decide the name for N′ (N-Triples)"


What's wrong with N-Triples? :)

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Naming:
> Namespace: http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/Turtle
> Local name: turtle
> 
> (so that makes http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/Turtleturtle -- looks wrong to me!)
> 
>> 
>> The Graphs discussion only endangers the group if we let it outside of
>> its joyful little box.
>> 
>>       -- Sandro
> 
> This comment (to SPARQL-WG but it relates) is about Turtle:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0103.html
> 
> It would be helpful to SPARQL-WG to decide this, ideally with no change.
> 
>  Andy
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 15:38:03 UTC