- From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:20:57 -0800
- To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>
Ian Davis wrote: > > On 10/03/2006 20:38, Harry Halpin wrote: > >> I was wondering, perhaps it would be useful for the W3C or some >> standards body to "endorse" one of the simplified XML syntax choices for >> RDF and a compact notation ala Turtle ... :) > I agree. And we're close with the syntax for expressing query patterns > in Sparql. It wouldn't be too much work to extract the RDF bits from > that spec and package it up as an official non-xml syntax for RDF. Of > course it would end up looking the same as Turtle given that's where it > came from. That's why the SPARQL triple pattern syntax changed half way through development from the RDQL/BRQL style, and the DAWG and myself (as Turtle editor) have spent a lot of time making these align at various points and in both directions. There are still a few more Turtle updates pending (not related to SPARQL). Just in case people weren't aware. Here's SPARQL-the-RDF-syntax: PREFIX foo: <http://example.org/ns> CONSTRUCT { foo:a foo:b "lit"@en ; foo:d <http://www.example.org> . } if the syntax allowed omitting the actual *query* :) The aim was roughly this; you could put any Turtle inside CONSTRUCT { } and it would be legal in SPARQL, and put any Turtle inside WHERE { } and it would be a legal SPARQL triple pattern. Then add variables, and you have a query. [The only bit you can't put in there is the @prefix / PREFIX]. As to making new RDF syntaxes, the RIF WG has that in their charter, at least for one targeted at rules. Dave
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 22:44:32 UTC