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

Re: RDF Syntaxes 2.0

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:58:34 -0500
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <1264604314.6840.476.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 10:42 +0000, Steve Harris wrote: 
> On 25 Jan 2010, at 16:23, Dave Beckett wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > 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.

Can you shed some light on why this information -- whether the RDF may
contain named graphs -- needs to be determinable from the serialization
type?  

And does this mean that you'd like two formats: Turtle-NG, which could
carry named graphs, and plain Turtle (a subset of Turtle-NG), which
couldn't?



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 14:59:02 UTC

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