Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

Hi

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 2009/11/1 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>:
>> > So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything?
>> 
>> Turtle syntax.
> 
> Yeah...  Any insights into how to handle the costs of having multiple
> syntaxes?  Should the expectation be that all RDF consuming software
> will handling exactly three syntaxes (RDF/XML, RDFa, and Turtle)?  I
> guess many systems already do, and compared to the other two, parsing
> Turtle is trivial.

If anyone was concerned about the costs of multiple syntaxes then we wouldn't have 3 native OWL 2 syntaxes (plus all RDF forms of it), 2 RIF syntaxes, 2 SPARQL query results formats and possibly multiple presentations of the to-be-defined RDF2RDB mapping language [1].

Turtle is out there and to my knowledge every important RDF library supports it - and OWL API does as well. I support having it as a recommendation - not only to give it the status it deserves but also to finally sort out the media type problems around Turtle and N3. :-)
And picking up work on the Turtle version of the Primer [2] again would be nice as well.

Because of GRDDL you could say that the number of RDF-interpretable formats officially supported by W3C is endless. I'm not sure which formats a conforming RDF tool should be required to parse but I think RDF/XML and Turtle should both be on the list.

Regards,
  Simon


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/rdb2rdf-charter#scope
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/

Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 20:29:32 UTC