Re: RDF Syntaxes 2.0

Steve Harris wrote:
> 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
> might imply some facts about a graph with the
> URI, 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.

I was more thinking of allowing something like

<s> <p> <o> <g> .


Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 16:23:56 UTC