- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:49:36 +0200
- To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:28 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> [2013-07-23 13:52+0100]
> > I think that IF we do this, we do it properly - {} in the subject
> > position is important and the the new syntax is already some way
> > away from traditional TriG + it is no longer trying to be
> > SPARQL-compatible.
> >
> > Hence: proposal:
> >
> > 1/ Give it a new name and content type.
> >
> > This would be better and probably smooth the process of getting a
> > REC because a new name does not bring old assumptions with it. No
> > issues with existing use.
> >
> > 2/ Do not have {} for the default graph.
> >
> > Do have {}-graphs in the subject as well as object positions.
> >
> > 3/ Publish TriG as a NOTE. It is useful to give it some kind of
> > status with the changes for Turtle token alignment etc.
>
> I think we should seriously consider this proposal. It may be the best
> path for us to engage potential RDF users with an attractive and
> practical language.
+1
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 17:50:07 UTC