W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2013

Re: adding inline graphs to TriG

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <51EF2D5E.9090902@w3.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 07/23/2013 01:49 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 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

Would the TriG Note in this scenario document TriG as this WG imagines 
in today (with the Turtle changes, no "=", allowing repeated graph 
names, and the SPARQL stuff like PREFIX, BASE, and GRAPH) or would it 
just be what most/all TriG parses in the world are actually parsing 
today (or last year)?  Maybe call those TriG 1.1 and Trig 1.0 respectively.

Either way, I'm +0 to this, but that might change as I think about it 
more.   I certainly think there's room for a language that's better than 
TriG 1.1, I'm just not sure about doing it Rec-Track within this WG.

My concerns about it:

     - it sounds like some more work, and I'm not sure who's going to do 
that.   I don't think I can commit to it.   Are we talking two 
languages, each with their own test suite?  We're quite short on time 
for getting to REC before the end of the WG.

     - we have to come up with a good name for it.    fun, but hard.    
(I remember some ideas like "superturtle", "quartle", "turtle 2", 
"turtle with graph", "mugl", "triq", ...)

     - it puts more pressure on getting it right.  I think if we just 
Recommend TriG 1.1, with flaws (like no inline-graph-subjects), there's 
room for something better to come along.   If we produce something 
*somewhat* better than TriG 1.1, it makes it harder to migrate to 
something a even better than that.    This is very hard to judge.

Some of the things that might also be included in a better-than-TriG 
(some of which have nothing to do with named graphs), that I doubt we're 
ready to put in a REC yet:
   - particular dataset semantics
   - literal times & dates
   - a syntax to help with repeated objects (either an inverse-predicate 
operator or allowing comma between subjects)
   - things to make turtle usable for people who dont want to handle 
lots of namespaces (cf json-ld and RDFa)
   - a syntax for variables (far-fetched, I know)

Lots of ways to proceed here, but a lot of uncertainty making it hard to 
pick a path.

         -- Sandro

>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 01:26:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC