W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2008

RE: SWIG F2F during W3C TPAC week, Oct 20/21 (Cannes, France)

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:12:14 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852018896D5@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <danbri@danbri.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, <ivan@w3.org>, <parcher@fosi.org>


Peter,

>I would be very interested in reading a full specification of 
>N3.  Could you point me to one?

Dunno, is http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/ 'full' enough?

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: semantic-web-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. 
>Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:07 PM
>To: parcher@fosi.org
>Cc: danbri@danbri.org; semantic-web@w3.org; ivan@w3.org
>Subject: Re: SWIG F2F during W3C TPAC week, Oct 20/21 (Cannes, France)
>
>
>From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
>Subject: Re: SWIG F2F during W3C TPAC week, Oct 20/21 (Cannes, France)
>Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:50:25 +0100
>
>> 
>> Dan, everyone,
>> 
>> I wonder whether a possible topic for discussion might be... and I'm
>> hesitating a little to write this... testing the water to determine
>> interest in and willingness to create an update to the RDF specs. 
>> 
>> A few of things lead me to this:
>>   - There appears to be at least some dissatisfaction with RDF/XML
>>   - N3, whilst fully specified and understood, is not part of the
>>    formal specs 
>
>I would be very interested in reading a full specification of 
>N3.  Could
>you point me to one?
>
>>   - Named graphs have been discussed (a lot) with various solutions
>>     proposed although none adopted (at least formally) 
>>   - The 10th anniversary is looming and maybe it's time for 
>at least a
>>     review 
>>   - A lot of other technologies have been built off RDF 
>(OWL, now with
>>     2.0 well on the way, SPARQL, RIF, RDFa POWDER, and more) 
>and these
>>     may well provide good feedback into the original core? 
>> I'm sorry to say that I'm not going to arrive until the Tuesday
>> afternoon so I'm not going to be able to participate much in the
>> discussion, but Ill get there as soon as I'm able. 
>> 
>> All the best
>> 
>> Phil.
>> 
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Bell Labs Research
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 11:17:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:25 GMT