Re: RDF 2 Wishlist: Turtle Syntax

ok, so this is a wishlist, so I am allowed to just add my "in an ideal  
world"-personal-my-private-little-hat-on favorites :-)

I have the following:

- Turlte has been mentioned exhaustively already... I'd also like to  
have a "Terse RIF syntax": I think a more RDF based
   syntax for RIF is still missing for RIF being picked up by the RDF  
community. If that meant rubbber-stamping N3 and
   nailing down its corresponding RIF fragment, that could be a good  
starting point.

- Annotations for RDF: apart from quads/named graphs, you want to give  
arbitrary annotations to RDF triples
   (time, provenance, trust, etc.). Is reification (without any real  
reification semantics) which is the
   only existing way to support annotations, really the right way to  
solve this?
   I think that would be a good time to taking a step back and looking  
at triple-level annotations with
   fresh eyes once more?

  - closing the XML-RDF gaps: It seems that the XML and RDF languages  
specing goes determined parallel
    paths in W3C with no real visible perspective for convergence.  
Integrated XML+RDF query languages,
    or maybe an XG for XML2RDF/RDF2XML would be cool: GRDDL is a  
starting point, but the current way to
    translate into RDF/XML and then use XML transformation languages  
instead of directly using SPARQL/SPARQL-Update
    seems like an unnecessary detour.

In general, I think a workshop on "RDF what's next" or specific  
workshops to any of the above-mentioned topics would
be necessary/welcome. The easy to solve issues (what anybody a lot of  
people are using, things like Turtle, named graphs)
should probably go right into rec track, for the othe issues XGs might  
be a good instrument.

Nice, so now thatI've written that down I can wait for Chrismtmas and  
see what Santa Sandro will bring ;-)


On 2 Nov 2009, at 05:08, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 2 Nov 2009, at 05:48, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> >> In the wild the most complaints I've heard, and the biggest
> >> misunderstandings, have been through RDF/XML syntax. It works,  
> and it
> >> can be understood (and danbri has a nice history doc somewhere) but
> >> it's horrible compared to most serialisations of stuff.
> >
> > Right, which is why those alternative syntaxes exist and have many
> > interoperable implementations.
> >
> > Are there a lot of people/systems out there that refuse to do
> > anything but RDF/XML because it's the only serialization that is a
> > W3C Recommendation?
> Quoting [1]:
> “There are various ways to serialize RDF descriptions. Your data
> source should at least provide RDF descriptions as RDF/XML which is
> the only official syntax for RDF.”
> It surely wouldn't say this if Turtle was a W3C Rec. If it didn't say
> this, then we'd have a lot more Turtle and a lot less RDF/XML on the
> web right now.
> The rule will remain: “If in doubt, use RDF/XML.” The W3C Rec stamp of
> approval matters.
> Best,
> Richard
> [1]
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >> I'm not a huge fan of e.g. JSON (because namespaces/URIs aren't  
> built
> >> in) but the rest of the world is.
> >> The tasty bits of RDF aren't immediately accessible through an XML
> >> parser.
> >> (you know damn well I've been an RDF/XML advocate for years,  
> position
> >> shifted m'fraid)
> >> Danny.
> >

Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 14:14:13 UTC