Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2011, at 23:45, Nathan wrote:
>>> RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]
>> yes, a main reason being, if we don't, somebody else will, and possibly a few different people, which would lead to interop problems and require standardization in the future. So may as well get there first.
> I'm sorry Nathan. This has to be the worst advice I've ever heard regarding standardization.

surely it can't be the /worst/ advice, I've definitely heard worse :p

> If there's no interoperability problem yet, then there is nothing to standardize, and a standardization group has no business concerning itself with the matter. What you're talking about is R&D, and standardization groups are the worst possible place for that.

normally I'd agree, however RDF is seen as being in the domain/control 
of a standardization body, people haven't added graph literals to 
turtle, because that wouldn't be turtle, wouldn't be handled by RDF, and 
thus is seen that they "can't" do it, not that they "don't want to" do it.

If there was a way to easily put a chunk of RDF in to a graph and talk 
about it, people would do it - likewise chunks of HTML and chunks of 
JSON. People get data from the web and people want to be able to wrap 
that data up and strap meta data to it, without the indirection names 

Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 16:20:51 UTC