- From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:47 +0000
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 1 Nov 2009, at 17:51, Sandro Hawke wrote: > So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything? > OWL 2 added a bunch of stuff to OWL that users wanted and implementors > were willing to tackle. Are there things like that around RDF? > > My own answer is in a recent blog post: > http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/ > > What's yours? I did a quick talk at TPAC last year: * Deprecate RDF reification. Issue warnings, write document to explain problems. * Deprecate collections (Alt, Bag, Seq). See above. * Serialise all graphs. Let rdf/xml use property URI: <rdf:rel rdf:prop=”http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name”>Damian Steer</ rdf:rel> * Serialise named graphs (although I'm not super keen in general): * Simple envelope: <document name="foo" type="application/ turtle">...</document> * Sparql GSPO to dump datasets * etc * Deprecate rdf:id. Make about and resource synonyms. * Make bnode unlabelled, rather than existentially quantified var. * Prefixes: warn if some standard set not 'correct'. Have 'grab all' namespace. * Lang _and_ type. Reason for exclusivity lost in mists of time. * Simple rule language. Not sure RIF has delivered that? * Literals as subjects. Not that useful, SPARQL allows it. * Bnodes as predicates. See above. Does SPARQL allow it? * RDF/XML inverse properties. Make writing more pleasant. * Equivalence relations. Seems like every use of sameAs is incorrect. I also liked Pat's keynote as ISWC. Alas, he didn't have much to say on the last issue. Damian
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 11:13:38 UTC