- From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:23:23 -0800
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
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> . Dave
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 16:23:56 UTC