On Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:25 PM, Richard Light wrote: > > On 05/12/2013 10:28, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: [...] > This would have to be relatively abstract, in that the Concepts > recommendation isn't specifying a serialization format, like Turtle. Exactly. I fear that including BNF into Concepts would thus be very confusing. We tried hard to separate the abstract syntax from concrete syntaxes in RDF 1.1. > > Given the timing, it may not be possible to include this at all, or to > > include this in a normative section. Will you accept either of those > > outcomes? > > Yes. I realise that I have come to this discussion at a point where > you are about to finalise this document. Also, I am interested to > hear whether there is wider support for this idea from within the > developer community, but do not take it for granted that such support > exists. I personally am against this for the reason stated above. BNF is, IMO, of very limited use if it isn't describing a data format but a data *model*. Could you please elaborate a bit on why you think > it would introduce standard naming conventions, and structures, > which could be followed in whichever programming language was being > used for development. If RDF triples are stored in a relational database for example, do you think developers would benefit from the BNF? What if it is stored as JSON-LD in a database such as MongoDB or perhaps ElasticSearch? In any case, I've raised ISSUE-176 [1] to track this. We will get back to you with an official shortly. Cheers, Markus [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/176 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthalerReceived on Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:49:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:44 UTC