Re: Deprecate most "native" RDF serializations

On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 23:28 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name> [2012-05-05 21:08-0700]
> > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 19:50 -0700, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> > >> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > >> > On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 11:22 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> """
> > >> >> TURTLE Lite would effectively be a subset of TURTLE - N-Quads, or
> > >> >> something that would be N-Quads-like (allowing for either "s p o" or
> > >> >> "s
> > >> >> p o c" statements).
> > >> >> """
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Gavin has asserted that TURTLE already supports N-Triples... now all
> > >> >> we
> > >> >> need to do is to make N-Quads a subset of TURTLE and we're good for
> > >> >> TURTLE Lite.
> > >> >
> > >> > Since a subset can't include things not in its superset, I guess you're
> > >> > saying that Turtle should include the dataset/quad stuff?  Do you have a
> > >> > proposed syntax for that?   I don't think adding the label after the
> > >> > triple, as in N-Quads, works well in Turtle...
> > >> >
> > >> >  s p o1 g, o2 g; p2 o3 g.
> > >> >
> > >> > Nah.   Maybe just like trig, where you have a triple you could have
> > >> > label + { graph }.   Or maybe a GRAPH keyword like in SPARQL.  I kind of
> > >> > like that.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, had proposed adding @graph to Turtle. There wasn't support for
> > >> doing so. Too much of a change to the language.
> > >
> > > It might be more accurate to say there was more opposition than support
> > > at the time.   There was some support.   Manu might be offering more --
> > > and, more to the point, he's making a new argument that might
> > > potentially be supported by data.   (He's arguing for simplicity to
> > > appeal to potential adopters.  RDF experts are in some cases the worst
> > > people to assess that kind of argument.)
> > 
> > See http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs-In-Turtle
> > Email thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0170.html
> > Minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-28
> > 
> > This was close to my initial argument as well 7 months ago. Publishing
> > Turtle as a preferred way to publish RDF at the same as publishing a
> > new recommendation about named graphs and not being able to use named
> > graphs in Turtle seems poor. Also existing implementations today
> > already use special comments in Turtle documents to support something
> > very like named graphs. 8 months ago figured I'd wait to worry about
> > this more till we settled on named graph support in the next 3 months
> > ... yeah ... The nearness of a Turtle LC and the ongoing
> > confusion/conversation/whatever on named graphs is reducing my own
> > support for trying to support "named graphs" in Turtle. This likely
> > means that if whatever we come up with for named graphs sees wide
> > adoption more people will move towards TriG (or whatever Turtle like
> > multi graph format) as the default format rather than
> > Turtle/N-Triples. Lee Feigenbaum already comments to that effect in
> > the thread. If your using multi graphs today, you can't really use
> > Turtle.
> 
> I'm all down with a combined language/spec. I wasn't keen on graph
> markers without {}s to help me see the scope, but I'm not sure where
> consensus lies on that coin flip.

I think compatibility with SPARQL argues strongly in favor of the braces
for named graphs.   But, yeah, it's a coin flip.

    -- Sandro

> 
> > > Other than backward compatibility -- which we're breaking on other
> > > places already, can you think of any reason we're using @prefix instead
> > > of SPARQL's PREFIX?
> > 
> > At this time we have non compliant PARSERS. All existing Turtle
> > documents should still be valid Turtle documents (with possible very
> > odd edge cases), if this is not the case then I would consider it a
> > bug in the new specification. Saying that old parsers are not
> > compliant is very different than saying that old documents are not
> > Turtle any more.
> > 
> > >
> > >  -- Sandro
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Steve has argued very strongly, and Andy just mentioned again, that
> > >> > people want to know from the mime type whether they'll be getting
> > >> > triples or quads.   Steve sees it as a big security issue -- you don't
> > >> > want to load quads in from the Web and have them over-write your
> > >> > crawler's internal state metadata or data that was supposedly fetched
> > >> > from other address. I'm not convinced, myself, not at all, because I
> > >> > think one needs to have an "untrusted" mode of loading quads that
> > >> > renames all the graphs.
> > >> >
> > >> >    -- Sandro
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 11:07:23 UTC