W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Turtle support for WebID profiles

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:47:47 +0100
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <08DCE312-AA05-458E-9FF5-60E4E6D56D39@bblfish.net>
To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
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:

Please let me know of mistakes I may have introduced.


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
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 19:48:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:54 UTC