Re: add Turtle examples to specs

On 3/10/06, Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org> 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.

I would imagine endorsement of any  'plain' XML syntax for RDF aside
from RDF/XML would be difficult, given the number of proposed
alternatives out there. Whether there would be much to be gained from
this is another question - the horse has already bolted in regards to
many in the XML community (and that's before considering the issues
around OWL++ serialisations).

But the work around GRDDL, and in this context especially XHTML-based
generic Embedded RDF - go Ian! -  should offer easier inroads to the
material for non-machine agents. I'd rather not comment on RSS, other
than that the teaching scenario Harry describes is telling.

Turtle is pure windfall. It's been played with a lot (in N3), Dave
Beckett's already spec'd it out, as Ian suggests SPARQL is effectively
carrying the same stuff to Rec. status. A W3C Note or similar based on
Dave's spec might just add a useful little rubber-stamp.

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Saturday, 11 March 2006 01:43:36 UTC