Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

I read the 12 December 2011 draft a bit more thoroughly. I seethe spec
includes Turtle as optional in section 1.2:
"The document may be published in a number of other RDF
serializationformats, such as N3 [N3] or Turtle [TURTLE]. Any
serialisation must betransformable automatically and in a standard
manner to an RDF Graph,using technologies such as GRDDL
But " Processing the WebID Profile" does not mention this.
So the immediate question w.r.t Turtle is whether or not to *require* Turtle?
I would suggest yes, for the reasons in my previous email, quoted below...
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Patrick Logan <> wrote:
> Another spec-specific thread, this one for moving Turtle forward.
> Again, please keep this thread focused on moving the spec forward in
> support of Turtle. Longer, side conversations should go in a different
> thread.
> Henry asked in that other v.long thread:
> "I wonder if the linked data crowd would prefer turtle support over
> rdf/xml by now."
> My sense is the incremental cost for spec'ing, implementing, and
> testing Turtle is fairly low. And my assumption is that use of Turtle
> is on the upswing relative to RDF/XML.
> My preference is for Turtle to be included, because:
> * Given the RDF/XML requirement, the incremental cost for spec'ing,
> implementing, and testing Turtle is presumably low.
> * Turtle provides a beneficial alternative to RDF/XML or other XML-ish
> notations, as Turtle is more concise and less verbose than RDF/XML.
> Questions:
> 1. I do not see any issues off hand for moving Turtle forward. What is next?
> 2. The examples page in the wiki lists Turtle and N3 in one section
> (for somewhat obvious reasons). Should the proposal include the two
> together?
> -Patrick

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:57:34 UTC