- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:23:58 -0700
- To: Jörn Hees <j_hees@cs.uni-kl.de>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Cc: Wouter Beek <w.g.j.beek@vu.nl>
Even if spaces are optional in N-Triples, N-Triples documents are still easy to parse, so I don't see that the quote you put forward has anything to say about white space in N-Triples. The second and third examples you present are not valid in N-Triples, regardless of white space, so they certainly don't have anything to say about white space in N-Triples. It might have been better at the beginning to require white space after the subject, predicate, and object of a triple in N-Triples, but given that that wasn't required I don't see that the costs of requiring them now are worth any minor benefits in human readability that might ensue. Note that nothing (except the badly written grammar for N-Triples) prevents tools from putting single spaces after subjects, predicates, and objects. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 06/29/2017 06:34 AM, Jörn Hees wrote: > Hi, > > IMO the following line from the intro of the N-Triples spec says it all: "N-Triples is an easy to parse line-based subset of Turtle" > > Parsing (or even thinking about) stuff like > > <foo><bar>"bla". > :::. > x:a :b"foo". > > is way more complicated (and by that not easy) than single space delimited RDF terms. > > I'm strongly against ever encouraging the no-space form, as i really think we don't need this kind of unnecessary complication. > > Also I'm a fan of good old unix tools such as sort, grep, sed... ([1] for an example). > I'm not saying it's impossible, but without the space it's definitely more complicated and error prone. > > That said: let's update the specs? (erratum / next version?) > > Best, > Jörn > > [1]: https://joernhees.de/blog/2015/01/28/dbpedia-2014-stats-top-subjects-predicates-and-objects/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 14:24:41 UTC