- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:26:31 +0000
- To: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I've had some good feedback from various people with respect to Turtle and since the last version I announced on www-rdf-interest 2004-01-19 and I have made a couple of changes since then. Turtle http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/ The first one was to fix an accidental incompatibility with cwm/n3 in collections - items in the collection are separated by whitespace, not commas. This was my mistake and meant adding a new grammar term http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/#itemList The second was a new feature to make OWL constraints much easier to type; the addition of integer literals. These are non-negative decimal integers with an xsd:integer datatype, again matching what cwm does for such things. This added another new grammar term http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/#integer There are test cases for the language in two parts: 1) N-Triples tests http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#ntrip_tests linking to http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt 2) Turtle tests http://cvs.ilrt.org/cvsweb/redland/raptor/tests/turtle/ This is all implemented in Raptor in the CVS version available from http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/raptor/ At this point I feel Turtle has reached a pretty good state of matching what you want to write down in triples for RDF and OWL without heading off into more rare cases (other datatypes, long literals, XML literals) or non-RDF/OWL. So I think this is as far as I want to go at this point until I get some more feedback from other implementors. Then it may be worth turning into a stable document such as a W3C note via via the Semantic Web interest group or the SWBD working group. The former seems the best choice at this time. Dave
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 10:28:32 UTC