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

Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:38:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnELF4DwWDoD-A6TsrwHxsr6xHp3fkLSTk3xn3cB221_mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>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?

+1 for moving turtle next to RDF/XML and RDFa.

> 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?

Promoting N3 in the context of WebID is a bad idea because 1) it is poorly
supported by RDF libraries at this point, and 2) it is overkill if all we
need is to serialize RDF, e.g. we don't require advanced N3 features like


> -Patrick
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 05:38:56 UTC

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