- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:57:05 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 01/04/11 19:00, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:54, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> ACTION-24 >> >> I've started a draft at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/N-Triples-Format > > I've made an editorial pass over the document, and added the following questions to the end: Thank you very much. > > * Should "Modifications to N-Triples" mention that > relative IRIs are allowed? When I checked the "RDF Test Cases" edition, I found section 3 says that the "absoluteURI ... representing an RDF URI references" so it's absolute. It wasn't stated in the internal WG doc. [[ Minor: The Turtle test suite (test 29, a positive test) has an illegal URI in it and illegal N-triples to go with it. ]] Are there examples of real worlds data that uses relative IRIs in N-triples? If not, we could decide that theer is no base processing in RDF-triples, absolute IRIs only. > * Comments in N-Triples have to be on their own line, > in Turtle they can be on a line that also has non-WS > content. RDF-Triples should follow N-Triples? Good point - missed that. > * In N-Triples, a triple can't be split over multiple > lines, and one line can't have multiple triples. In > Turtle, both are allowed. RDF-Triples should follow > N-Triples? Again, good point. > Best, > Richard Andy
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 18:57:42 UTC