- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:36:53 +0100
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, >From the current discussion, it seems to me that there is a strong need for RDF includes -- that is, the ability to include (i.e., embed) an RDF graph into another graph. This feature should also support various RDF syntaxes. I find this potentially quite useful; however, I don't think that OWL is then the correct forum for designing such a feature: this should be done by an RDF Working Group. We can't rewind the clock and add this feature to RDF now; however, we should not now completely contort the various layers in the Semantic Web. In particular: - XML includes are out there, so one can use them for including RDF/XML graphs into RDF/XML graphs. This should be sufficient for quite a few applications, as RDF/XML *by far* the most common exchange syntax for RDF-based data nowadays. - We should provide a feature request for a future revision of RDF in form of syntax-independent graph inclusions. This seems to me to be a clean solution in which different concerns are addressed at appropriate layers. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > Sent: 12 September 2008 16:27 > To: Bijan Parsia > Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes) > > > > > > On 12 Sep 2008, at 16:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > > <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Isn't RDF/XML *the* RDF serialization? > > > > > > That we have turtle in the Primer is just one piece of evidence that > > > this is not the case. As I said, and as had been argued persuasively > > > in the past, a solution that is specific to a particular serialization > > > of RDF is undesirable. > > > > We don't spec a Turtle serialization of OWL. > > > > It seems very odd to constrain ourselves from using standard, widely > > implemented, W3C technologies as they are intended to be used in > > order to accommodate a non-normative syntax over which we do not > > have, nor do we desire, any control. > > I don't know what the issue here it, but on this point I'll jump in: > it's been clear since at least the 2001 charter for RDF Core that > RDF/XML was not intended to be the only standard serialization of RDF. > RIF BLD frames are probably a Rec Track serialization of RDF, and Turtle > is certainly a de facto standard serialization or RDF. > > -- Sandro >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:38:39 UTC