- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:29:04 -0700
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
> serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in
some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus
process. RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business
rules format.
RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation
syntax that looks like N3. RIF includes triples which can have
literals as subject, of course. (In RIF, these triples are called
"frames". Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called
frames, technically. But they are defined by the spec to be an
extension of RDF triples.)
-- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:29:28 UTC