- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:42:25 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 25 Jan 2010, at 16:23, Dave Beckett wrote: > 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> . That has the same issues. It's not the syntax, it's the maybe named graphs, maybe not thing. - 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 Tuesday, 26 January 2010 10:43:11 UTC