Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

sorry Sandro - it just occurred to me that the thing syntax-wise is
needed is really Turtle + named graphs - well below cwm stuff, but
maybe get the recipe for formulae from there


2009/11/1 Sandro Hawke <sandro@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
>



-- 
http://danny.ayers.name

Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 22:08:42 UTC