W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:57:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9BAC61.6030301@webr3.org>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi All,

Just some quick notes re the RDF Recommendation Set

-> Semantics
    - What happens to L-Base? personally I find it's style far more 
readable, will it be updated where needed? could it be used to define an 
abstract syntax?

-> Abstract Syntax and Concepts
    - How does this tie in with the multiple serializations now?
    - Examples in multiple formats like OWL?
    - A proper abstract syntax?
    - Merge with the semantics?
    - Clean up on Fragments text (had request from JAR for this, and 
some related issues for fragment identifier semantics for Turtle etc)

-> RDF Schema
    - Taking in to account RDFS 3.0 from J Hendler?
      http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31
    - Seems to be split between RDF Semantics for RDFS entailment? The 
two are more coherent together (and again, hate to say it but L-Base 
style of writing the entailment for RDFS is really clear)

-> Primer
    - needed if we have well written serialization spec's w/ examples 
and a coherent "core" document?
    - seems like a large domain w/ 3 syntaxes? (and ties to RDFa, SPARQL 
etc)
    - any ties in with RDF API?

-> Serializations
   -> Turtle
   -> RDF/XML
   -> JSON

-> Test Cases
    - should be per serialization?

- where do "graphs" surface in these specs?
- can graphs even be a separate document?
- linked data? do we cover or account for it, do a note, anything?

Best,

Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 23:58:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT