Re: Call for Consensus: FPWD for Semantics, TriG, N-Triples, N-Quads

On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working
> Draft (FPWD) of the following four documents:
> 
> RDF Semantics:
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#
> TriG
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html
> N-Triples:
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html
> N-Quads:
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/nquads/index.html
> 
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive responses are encouraged. If there are no objections within the time frame of one week, this resolution will carry.

+1, but it should be noted that the N-Quads grammar does not allow triples. It states in 2.1 that the graph label IRI can be ommited, but the statement grammar rule does not allow for this. It could potentially be re-written as follows:

[2] statement ::= WS* subject WS+ predicate WS+ ( graphLabel WS*)? '.' WS*

Note that N-Quads are used in the JSON-LD toRDF test cases, and we depend on being able to use triples along with quads.

Also, for N-Quads, as well as all the other formats, BLANK_NODE_LABEL can end with a ".", meaning that <a> <b> _:c. is not a valid triple, as the "_:c." lexically matches that BLAND_NODE_LABEL terminal, and the trailing "." is not found. Of course, this comes from SPARQL, so it's a long standing issue.

Gregg

> Considerations to note:
> - As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger patent policy review.
> - As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents.
> 
> Guus
>

Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 18:36:45 UTC