W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: RDF Syntaxes 2.0

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:07:17 +0000
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <41DF17D1-0EEE-4512-9ABE-AF2D0BC896D7@garlik.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.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  
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 10:07:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC