Re: Syntax Proposal [All] $swbp

>Syntax Proposal:
>It has been moved that we adopt the following 
>conventions for SWBPD syntax usage.
>1. In the main content sections of all formal 
>published notes, Turtle/N3 will be used.

I would prefer the 'abbreviated' version of 
Ntriples that was used in the RDF documentation 
(ie allowing qname forms for URIrefs). This is 
reasonably readable but has the merit that it 
shows exactly the triples in the graph, and 
requires one to be explicit about labelling 

Notations  (like RDF/XML and Turtle) which gather 
together triples with a common subject distort 
the logical form and lead to misunderstandings, 
and in fact seem to me to be less readable than 
'flat' notations which exhibit the graph 
structure more explicitly.

I therefore vote against this motion.


>This meets the requirements that the syntax be 
>both human- and machine-readable.

Turtle is neither, seems to me.

>Exception: In some cases, the subject matter is 
>best communicated using a different syntax (e.g. 
>the RDF/XML Task Force). This is deemed 
>acceptable on a case-by-case basis for the main 
>content sections of formal published notes.
>As appropriate, additional syntaxes may be 
>presented in appendices to the notes.
>	should we make it a requirement that, say 
>all notes at least have RDF/XML in an appendix? 
>	should this be entirely up to the author's discression? 
>2.	For regular email exchanges, use of 
>Turtle/N3 syntax remains the recommended 
>convention, but is not required to the extent 
>that it causes undue inconvenience. For example:
>	one's favorite tool may not export Turtle/N3.
>	there are times when one may wish to dash 
>off a quick example and just type it in some ad 
>hoc informal notation.
>	the subject matter may be best explained 
>using alternative syntaxes (as above).

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell

Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 19:25:14 UTC