W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:31:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2BB7AD.6010103@webr3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
> Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Here are the reasons I voted this way:
>> - it will mess up RDF/XML
> No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
> representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already
> the case.

Yes! +100

we all keep saying RDF isn't RDF/XML don't we..?

Perhaps, RDF is really N3, with N3 Rules etc which expand it, and then 
different serializations support subsets of that - the RDF/XML spec 
already appears to be only a spec for RDF/XML not RDF (broadly speaking) 
maybe it just needs that said in a normative way so we can get on and 
build what we all really need, define a core RDF non serialization 
specific Rec/Spec then go from there - nobody says each serialization 
*must* handle all of RDF, but perhaps levels of conformance could be 
added to each serialization spec
- has graph literals/formulae/nested graphs Y/N
- has literal subjects y/n
- supports rules y/n


Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 21:32:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:02 UTC