- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:08:08 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, semantic-web@w3.org
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