- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:57:21 +0100
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi All, Just some quick notes re the RDF Recommendation Set -> Semantics - What happens to L-Base? personally I find it's style far more readable, will it be updated where needed? could it be used to define an abstract syntax? -> Abstract Syntax and Concepts - How does this tie in with the multiple serializations now? - Examples in multiple formats like OWL? - A proper abstract syntax? - Merge with the semantics? - Clean up on Fragments text (had request from JAR for this, and some related issues for fragment identifier semantics for Turtle etc) -> RDF Schema - Taking in to account RDFS 3.0 from J Hendler? http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31 - Seems to be split between RDF Semantics for RDFS entailment? The two are more coherent together (and again, hate to say it but L-Base style of writing the entailment for RDFS is really clear) -> Primer - needed if we have well written serialization spec's w/ examples and a coherent "core" document? - seems like a large domain w/ 3 syntaxes? (and ties to RDFa, SPARQL etc) - any ties in with RDF API? -> Serializations -> Turtle -> RDF/XML -> JSON -> Test Cases - should be per serialization? - where do "graphs" surface in these specs? - can graphs even be a separate document? - linked data? do we cover or account for it, do a note, anything? Best, Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 23:58:11 UTC