- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:47:47 +0100
- To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
- Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
So the draft editors spec now has Turtle one of the two formats that to be published and I have removed RDF/XML from the examples, whilst still keeping it as a MUST for the Verification agent. diff here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/10f05dfd0dcd Please let me know of mistakes I may have introduced. Henry 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. > > 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 > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 19:48:21 UTC