Re: [TF-TD] A case for using Turtle internally in the group

I very much support the idea of focusing on thing descriptions in terms of Linked Data separately from the details of serialisation as JSON. Moreover, we ought to enumerate the requirements and their basis in use cases. Turtle and Linked Data graph diagrams would be handy way to support this.

> On 5 Oct 2016, at 14:02, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> Following our discussion in the teleconference today, here I'd like to explain more precisely why we (Maxime, Andrei, and I) would prefer using Turtle for discussing the structure of thing descriptions (while keeping JSON-LD for examples in the documents we publish).
> 
> What we have to agree on is the graph structure showing the relations between the parts of a description. We need to describe how a thing can be related to a property, or an action, or an event, how these are related to an encoding or mime type, etc. We need to know what the relationships are meaning and what kinds of entities they are relating.
> 
> For this, we need to be able to communicate example graph structures by email as efficiently as possible. Although JSON-LD is a valid and more and more popular way to serialise an RDF graph, it is not the easiest in terms of understanding the underlying graph behind the serialisation.

—
   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>