W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: N3 and N-Triples (was: RDF in HTML: Approaches)

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 13:30:17 -0400
Message-Id: <200206031730.NAA17352@sbcs.cs.sunysb.edu>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

>>>>> "AS" == Aaron Swartz <of Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:42:58 CDT> writes:

    AS> On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 01:41  AM, Patrick Stickler wrote:
    >> I would, thus, not like to see any N3 or NTriples used as primary
    >> representations for RDF that are interchanged by real systems.
    >> N3 and NTriples are not standard encodings for interchange. RDF/XML
    >> is. And that's what folks should be using in a global context.

    AS> Perhaps we will be more "interoperable" if we stick with RDF/XML, but I 
    AS> think that's rather meaningless since it will only be adopted by the 
    AS> tiny community we already have. If we want more people to adopt RDF 
    AS> we're going to have accept that the old syntax is flawed and move on.

This echos what I wrote about 2 weeks ago: the current XML/RDF syntax makes
no sense.  NTriples are easy to write by hand or translate into from
higher-level languages, like F-logic.  NTriples can be naturally encoded in
XML and exchanged.

However, before it is standardized, one must make sure that there are no
problems extending NTriples to accommodate Prolog-like rules. (I think
there are.)


Michael Kifer
kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu  
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 13:31:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT