Re: Comments in n-triples format?

Good catch.  That is strong evidence that the current draft of the 
n-triples grammar is wrong.  I'll report it as a bug.

thanks,
David

On 07/17/2013 12:53 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> I do this often I hadn't realized it wasn't legal
>
> However, I can't say it is a big deal, but does seem to be in the
> spirit of n-triples.
>
> Moreover the RDF Core spec
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#comment
>
> and their test cases
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test001.nt
>
>
> permit it
>
>
> Jeremy J Carroll Principal Architect Syapse, Inc.
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:44 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>
>> What would others think of modifying the n-triples grammar[1] to
>> allow comment lines like the following?
>>
>> # This is a comment line
 >> <http://example/foo> <http://example/bar> <http://example/baz> .
>>
>> At present, comments are not allowed in n-triples, though they are
>> allowed in Turtle and SPARQL.  I certainly don't want to make
>> n-triples overly complicated, but a comment on a line by itself
>> would be very easy to strip out when parsing, and it is very
>> helpful to be able to have comments in a document, for the benefit
>> of a human reader.  A comment at the beginning is often used to
>> indicate the purpose of the document, the authorship, copyright,
>> license info, etc.  Including such information directly in the file
>> makes it is easy to find.
>>
>> To some extent this can be done already, because if a comment is
>> added to an n-triples document, the document would still be valid
>> Turtle (because every n-triples document is valid Turtle) even it
>> it is no longer valid n-triples.  Still, I'm wondering if this
>> might be a beneficial change to n-triples.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> David
>>
>> 1. N-triples grammar:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#n-triples-grammar
>>
>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 18:02:48 UTC