W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: RDF Scoping Mechanism

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:06:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4C31CACB.8010105@thefigtrees.net>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/3/2010 1:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>>> Obvious question, regardless of implementations, is there any chance
>>>> of getting that scoping mechanism in to RDF through W3C to rec?
>>>>
>>>> Any rough ideas how long that process may take? (I'm assuming the
>>>> RDF Semantics are bug-less and this would just be an addition).
>>>>
>>>> My logic here is that if other serializations or even something
>>>> N3-like were to go through standardization, then work would probably
>>>> have to start on getting said scoping mech in to RDF sooner rather
>>>> than later.
>>>
>>> Well, from the standards track point of view, one could add things
>>> incrementally to RDF 2.0, 2.1, etc or one could just standardize N3
>>> as it is, within minimum changes, focussing on code which has been
>>> working for many years. That is generally an very accepted way to
>>> make a standard. Get n3 1.0 nailed as a standard. Demonstrate that it
>>> can be considered a superset of RDF. Demonstrate its use for carrying
>>> RIF. Standardize some built-in function ontologies. Set up an agenda
>>> for any later developments to be done after basic N3.
>>
>> How many implementations of N3 are there? How many N3 reasoners have
>> been built, and how do they compare in performance to, say, commercial
>> Prolog engines or high-end FOL reasoners? Obviously N3 is an important
>> data point, but I think we should cast our net wider.
>
> Since N3 is already here, spec'd, understood and has a good reference
> implementation that has been used for years, surely it would be an easy
> hit to just push through as a standard. Even if the net could be cast
> wider surely this could be done under RDF 2.0, N3 2.0 or something else
> that supersets both RDF and N3 (which the 2.0 versions could align with).
>
> I guess my questions is, what reason is there not to push N3 through as
> a standard?

There's a very large cost to standardizing _anything_, so it's important 
to be confident that you're standardizing the right* things. One 
reference implementation is a good start, but it's by no means the only 
criteria.

Lee

* For some relativistic definition of "right".

>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 12:07:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC