W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:50:05 +0100
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <428AA961-C979-4A66-B590-B6DFEDCEF9F6@bblfish.net>
To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Thanks Patrick for taking this on, in a disciplined manner.
My answers below.

On 22 Dec 2011, at 19:42, 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.

* It is less confusing to xml people as they don't think of applying xslt
tools to turtle, whereas they may be tempted to do that with rdf/xml 
and that won't be a good thing.

Anyway, all the implementations I have worked on support turtle. It works
out of the box with most RDF tools. 

> Questions:
> 1. I do not see any issues off hand for moving Turtle forward. What is next?

could you ask on the LinkedData list, or find some way of getting people
there to vote?  Well turtle support will get full support I believe, 
but the more difficult question is after that should one drop RDF/XML as a must
support? Or should one have both? I don't find it difficult to do both.

> 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?)

I like N3, but there are too few good parsers for it sadly (many that
claim to be N3 parsers are not). I think it's time is still to come. 
And so I'd love to mention it, but more as an aside.

> -Patrick

Social Web Architect
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 19:50:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:50 UTC