- From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:42:45 -0800
- To: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Another spec-specific thread, this one for moving Turtle forward. Again, please keep this thread focused on moving the spec forward in support of Turtle. Longer, side conversations should go in a different thread. Henry asked in that other v.long thread: "I wonder if the linked data crowd would prefer turtle support over rdf/xml by now." My sense is the incremental cost for spec'ing, implementing, and testing Turtle is fairly low. And my assumption is that use of Turtle is on the upswing relative to RDF/XML. My preference is for Turtle to be included, because: * Given the RDF/XML requirement, the incremental cost for spec'ing, implementing, and testing Turtle is presumably low. * Turtle provides a beneficial alternative to RDF/XML or other XML-ish notations, as Turtle is more concise and less verbose than RDF/XML. Questions: 1. I do not see any issues off hand for moving Turtle forward. What is next? 2. The examples page in the wiki lists Turtle and N3 in one section (for somewhat obvious reasons). Should the proposal include the two together? -Patrick
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:43:22 UTC