Re: My UCR action on merging two CSFs

Paula-Lavinia Patranjan wrote:

> I know that the current text under the new CSF is not really the perfect 
> one and I am happy to get proposals that fit better under this CSF, but 
> I have some comments on your proposal: The problem I have with this is 
> that RDF and SPARQL are not really sw standards for exchange of data. 

Yes they are. [*]

> Moreover, I don't think we should explicitly mention SPARQL here since 
> we don't yet know how SPARQL fits into RIF.

We are required by charter to align with it somehow, which is all that 
my suggested text was saying. We haven't yet agreed on *how* we will do 
that so there is no SPARQL requirement yet but mentioning it in the CSF 
seems to me to just be acknowledging the charter.

> How about a slightly modified version of your text:
> 
> "RIF should fit well with existing, key W3C specifications such as XML. 
> In particular, it should align well with the Semantic Web standards such 
> as resource descriptions (RDF) and ontologies (OWL). "

That would be acceptable.

Dave

[*] I'm confused how RDF could not be a semantic web standard for 
representation of data. The definition of the semantic web from W3C is:

"The Semantic Web provides a common framework that allows data to be 
shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries."

and RDF is the layer of that which is used to represent ground facts.

The bit it doesn't have is a protocol for how you actually get hold of 
that data other than at a document level. That's what SPARQL adds, 
that's why the group that generated it was called the "data access 
working group".

If you mean that you can also exchange data using XML directly then 
that's clearly true but my statement made no claims of exclusivity. I 
nearly put "semantic web standards for exchange of data (XML, RDF) ..." 
but didn't because that would trigger Chrisian's "people don't think of 
XML as being a semantic web standard" objection.

Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 09:09:18 UTC