- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:24:22 -0500
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, semantic-web@w3.org
Danny Ayers wrote: > 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 Yes, a la TriG (http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/TriG/), which would be my number 1 choice if W3C were to bless a specification of another RDF(-related) syntax. But really, I'm not so sure the lack of blessing on these various alternative syntaxes has been too big an interoperability headache.... has it? Lee > 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 >> > > >
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 01:25:12 UTC