Hi Jie (and Elisa) Jie Bao wrote: > >>From Elisa > > I personally believe that if the RDF syntax is not there, the QSG will > not be very useful to most. In my understanding of the discussion this was not really an option after all. I certainly believe that the RDF syntax is a must for a large percentage of users. I think the issue is whether another syntax would also be added in some way or other, most probably the functional syntax. > Perhaps we should include N3 if there are > supporters for it (I'm not sure there would be many visual > differences), Much as I like Turtle/N3, I do not see what difference it would make indeed... the current card is not really syntax dependent in this sense > and Manchester only if this group insists. The > alternate syntactic forms should be on separate versions or pages, NOT > on the front page. One alternative, ... would be to have multiple > versions of the document - an RDF/XML version, an N3 version (maybe), > a Manchester version (maybe) ... but I'd need a compelling business > reason to spend any time on it, and don't see it so far. My feeling is that having two versions, namely (essentially) the one you have now and one with the functional syntax should be enough. My 2 cents... Thanks Ivan > > -------- -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 13:35:31 UTC