W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:58:53 -0400
To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040829185853.GD22712@homer.w3.org>

Hi Leo,

* Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com> [2004-08-29 20:47+0200]

> >We thought of that.  But slipping in such a huge change to RDF
> >in an existing syntax wasn't where we ended up.
> >
> >I noticed that Named Graphs extends RDF in at least two ways:
> >1) RDF triple subjects can be literals
> >2) RDF triples are quads (sic)
> >
> >so it's really Named non-RDF Graphs.
> >
> >For reference, RDF triples are defined at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-triple
> >starting "An RDF triple contains three components:"
> > 

> and why can't we change this?
> 
> reification syntax is "not practical" as we see above in the thread. So 
> why can't we change the RDF spec and add a quad spec, together with a 
> RDF/XML and N-3 serialization.
> 
> who wants this, too?

The RDFCore specs are finished, fixed and stable. I'm not against the
idea of people exploring possible RDF-based successor specs that improve the 
ability to exchange provenance, but please don't talk about this 
in terms of "changing the RDF spec". The triple-based approach has been 
developed since 1997, and the new RECommendations we finalised earlier 
this year were an important landmark. If implementors and users 
come up with good proposals for new standardisation efforts, W3C could 
look into doing new work, but let's take care not to destabilise what we 
have already achieved...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2004 18:58:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC