- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:07:17 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 25 Jan 2010, at 05:38, Dave Beckett wrote: ... > So I'm happy with how Turtle turned out and that should be the focus > of RDF > syntax formats *for users*. It does need an update and I'll > probably work > on that whether or not a new syntax is part of some future working > group - I > have a pile of fixes to go in. Adding named graphs (TRIG) might be > the next > step for this if it was a standard. Agreed, I also think Turtle is close to the sweet spot of compactness/ complexity and human/machine readability. I'm also a fan of TriG (modulo some minor syntax oddities), but I don't want to see them merged. Sometimes it's helpful to know that what you're going to get won't have any additional named graphs in it. I don't want a situation where a text/turtle graph at http://foo.com/data.ttl might imply some facts about a graph with the URI http://bar.com/data.ttl , it's hard to know what you should do about that. If the file is TriG (or similar), then you know it can contain named graphs, and handle it differently - w.r.t. permissions and so on. - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44 20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 10:07:46 UTC