- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 22 Feb 2002 14:51:57 -0600
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, connolly@w3.org, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 14:11, Sandro Hawke wrote: > It seems to my inexpert eye that cwm has these functional components: > > 1. Parse RDF (REC-rdf-syntax-19990222), n3, ntriples > 2. Generate (pretty-print) RDF (REC-rdf-syntax-19990222), n3, ntriples > 3. Flatten (encode n3 formulas in an RDF graph; has been broken for ages) [...] > Personally, I'd like to see separate programs for 1+3 (reader), I'm pretty happy with the yapps-based reader: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdfn3_yapps.py http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdfn3-gram.html http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdfn3.g Well... speaking of performance, I'm not happy with the yapps scanner; it calls the regex engine N times per token, rather than just once. And it only parses... it doesn't flatten. (I consider that a feature, not a bug, btw.) > 2 > (writer), 4 (reifier), 5 (thinker), and 6 (questioner). (I imagine > the programs piping N-Triples or maybe RDF/XML between them.) That > would make life easier for parallel development and for tracking the > evolution of the different components. > > What do you think? Yup; a big part of the motivation for developing rdfn3.g was to specify how N3 relates to, say, KIF, without involving alll the hairy cwm bits. > > -- sandro > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/04/pl/semweb.P -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 15:52:06 UTC