- From: Jose María <josem.alvarez@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:25:16 +0100
- To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
- CC: Diego Berrueta Munoz <Diego.Berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
Dear RIF working group, we would like to raise some questions regarding the practical use of import clause w.r.t RDF data and OWL ontologies: 1) Which is the minimun set of RDF serialization formats that are supposed to be supported by a RIF implementation? In the specification SWC[1] we read: "Several syntaxes have been proposed for the exchange of RDF graphs, the normative syntax being RDF/XML [RDF-Syntax]. RIF does not provide a format for exchanging RDF graphs; it is assumed that RDF graphs are exchanged using RDF/XML, or any other syntax that can be used for representing or exchanging RDF graphs." Note that the test cases[2] use the Turtle syntax. 2) If more than one RDF serialization format are to be supported or required, how the RIF implementation can determine the parser to be used for each import clause? Thank you in advance! Best regards, CTIC [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#RDF_Compatibility [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/test/repository/tc/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1-premise.rif -- Jose María Alvarez CTIC-Centro Tecnológico Research Engineer - Semantic Technologies Parque Científico y Tecnológico de Gijón c/ Ada Byron, 39 Edificio Centros Tecnológicos 33203 Gijón - Asturias - Spain Tel.: +34 984 29 12 12 Fax: +34 984 39 06 12 E-mail: josem.alvarez@fundacionctic.org http://www.fundacionctic.org Privacy policy: http://www.fundacionctic.org/privacidad
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:03:15 UTC