- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:22:29 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jul 2008, at 20:10, Sandro Hawke wrote: [snip] > I don't have a strong opinion about these different approaches, but I > think we should be clear that these are primarily interim designs for > use until there's a standard format for RDF with named graphs. And we > should make sure whatever approach we pick can be compatible with a > future named-graphs standard, How can we possibly do this :) Plus, won't whatever they do take what we did into account? > so OWL 2 wont have to change: there will > be the RDF/XML serialization (using one of these interim hacks) and > the > RDF/XML+NamedGraphs serialization that doesn't need such hacks. > > As far as I can tell, there is consensus in the RDF community that > there > should be a named-graph standard. Making such a standard is, > unfortunately, an awkwardly-sized peice of work. It doesn't really > fit > inside any other work, and it's rather small for a whole new Working > group. So I don't know exactly when/how it will happen. RDFED anyone? :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 19:20:15 UTC