- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:01:25 -0500
- To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
> 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), Exactly one syntax for OWL is required (the RDF/XML based one). All the rest are optional. I wouldn't publish them on the open web, unless I was content-negotiating with RDF/XML as well. But tool makers want to use them inside systems, and in books and such. > 2 RIF syntaxes, The presentation syntaxes are just for people reading the spec and test cases. As with OWL, there is exactly one canonical/required syntax (the XML one). So, yes, we still have the social cost of multiple syntaxes, but at least systems gathering W3C-standard data off the open web don't have to understand a zillion syntaxes. > 2 SPARQL query results formats and possibly multiple presentations of > the to-be- defined RDF2RDB mapping language [1]. I don't think those features increase the cost of implementing data consumers. > 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 ni > ce as well. Yep, that sounds good to me as well. > Because of GRDDL you could say that the number of RDF-interpretable formats o > fficially supported by W3C is endless. I'm not sure which formats a conformin > g RDF tool should be required to parse but I think RDF/XML and Turtle should > both be on the list. True. GRDDL does make things interesting. Thanks for your input.... -- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 22:01:38 UTC