- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:30:03 +0000
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 11:00 -0500, Chris Welty wrote: > I suppose we don't really need to discuss whether we should > investigate an "RDF 2.0", but rather what kinds of requirements > various RDF users have that they would like to be considered (I'd like > this thread to be less "+1" and "-1" messages, and more "I'd like to > see RDF support x...") Adopt SPARQL's data model for all future Semantic Web standards -- for all SW protocols and serialisations. The major differences between SPARQL's data model and RDF are: * Explicit support for named graphs * Literal subjects * Blank node predicates (Though it might be a good idea to phase out blank nodes.) -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:30:44 UTC