- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:17:59 +0100
- To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:39 +0100, Ian Davis wrote: > I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general > logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move > towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression > in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 > implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have > with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between > them) I agree with this, but think it's largely a matter of terminology. I think as a community we ought to be moving to a multi-graph model with literal subjects, blank node predicates, etc. Whether that new model is called "RDF" or "RDF 2" or something else entirely is largely a matter of branding. Though that's not to say that branding isn't important - it may be that calling the superset something other than RDF increases confidence in both RDF and its superset. As it happens I've recently been looking at implementing N3 (the syntax and data model, though not the rules language) in Perl. (The RDF::Trine framework was so incredibly close to supporting the data model already, so I'm building on that.) -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 10:18:49 UTC