- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:40:08 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 12 Sep 2008, at 16:27, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On 12 Sep 2008, at 16:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Isn't RDF/XML *the* RDF serialization? >>> >>> That we have turtle in the Primer is just one piece of evidence that >>> this is not the case. As I said, and as had been argued persuasively >>> in the past, a solution that is specific to a particular >>> serialization >>> of RDF is undesirable. >> >> We don't spec a Turtle serialization of OWL. >> >> It seems very odd to constrain ourselves from using standard, widely >> implemented, W3C technologies as they are intended to be used in >> order to accommodate a non-normative syntax over which we do not >> have, nor do we desire, any control. > > I don't know what the issue here it, but on this point I'll jump in: > it's been clear since at least the 2001 charter for RDF Core that > RDF/XML was not intended to be the only standard serialization of RDF. > RIF BLD frames are probably a Rec Track serialization of RDF, and > Turtle > is certainly a de facto standard serialization or RDF. De facto == non-normative, yes? My point seems to remain. We don't have control over Turtle. If someone wants to extend turtle to cover this feature, they should talk with Dave. Indeed, I don't see why the "cross serialization solution" isn't that those other syntaxes adopt their own equivalent to XInclude. If we just make up a bit of syntax, it *still* requires modification of all the other syntaxes. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:37:38 UTC