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

Re: RDF Syntaxes 2.0

From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:23:23 -0800
Message-ID: <4B5DC57B.8030606@dajobe.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org
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
> 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.

I was more thinking of allowing something like

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

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

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