W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:25:19 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020320131950.00a525c0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
At 12:24 PM 3/20/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>* Is adding 'contexts'/whatever a good idea?
>
>   Use cases would help here too; the widespread use of N3 {}
>   (TimBL calls formulas) is an indicator.

I have surveyed some uses in my document (which was circulated as personal 
notes, not to do with this WG):

   http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html

In particular, section 5.4:

   http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html#xtocid-6303979

>* Would these be required to implement RDF or optional?
>
>   I suspect they'd have to be optional, in the way RDF Schema is optional.

I think optional, too, in that a (syntactic) subset that deals with ground 
facts should be just like CURRENT rdf.

>* Is it a good idea to make these changes at this time in the WG process?
>
>   Don't know; if this starts taking too long, too much energy, we
>   should consider punting.
>   (Although if we don't do it now, it won't be till a successor WG)

A good question.

I'll punt the question, but suggest a process:  interested parties might 
work on a note to extend/accompany the RDF core work - if it comes together 
easily then we can look to publish as part of the RDF set;  otherwise it 
gets deferred and maybe published as a NOTE and/or merged with an RDF V2 
effort.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 08:33:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:19 EDT