- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 01:27:23 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, semantic-web@w3.org
2009/11/2 Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>: > ok, so this is a wishlist, so I am allowed to just add my "in an ideal > world"-personal-my-private-little-hat-on favorites :-) > > I have the following: > > - Turlte has been mentioned exhaustively already... I'd also like to have a > "Terse RIF syntax": I think a more RDF based > syntax for RIF is still missing for RIF being picked up by the RDF > community. +1 I'm fairly sure I'm not the only person around here that gets a bit scared by RIF's presentation - an easy syntax would make it a lot more accessible. If that meant rubbber-stamping N3 and > nailing down its corresponding RIF fragment, that could be a good starting > point. I suspect rubber-stamping N3 might be a bit of a rathole, though if anyone has the confidence to take it on, it would be lovely to see. > > - Annotations for RDF: apart from quads/named graphs, you want to give > arbitrary annotations to RDF triples > (time, provenance, trust, etc.). Is reification (without any real > reification semantics) which is the > only existing way to support annotations, really the right way to solve > this? > I think that would be a good time to taking a step back and looking at > triple-level annotations with > fresh eyes once more? POWDER? > > - closing the XML-RDF gaps: It seems that the XML and RDF languages specing > goes determined parallel > paths in W3C with no real visible perspective for convergence. Integrated > XML+RDF query languages, > or maybe an XG for XML2RDF/RDF2XML would be cool: GRDDL is a starting > point, but the current way to > translate into RDF/XML and then use XML transformation languages instead > of directly using SPARQL/SPARQL-Update > seems like an unnecessary detour. Think I might disagree there - so much of the XML stack is tied to a tree model, and that distracts from the intuitive graph perspective on RDF. > In general, I think a workshop on "RDF what's next" or specific workshops to > any of the above-mentioned topics would > be necessary/welcome. The easy to solve issues (what anybody a lot of people > are using, things like Turtle, named graphs) > should probably go right into rec track, for the othe issues XGs might be a > good instrument. Absolutely - a lot of the annoyances we have could probably be bashed out through a bit of informal f2f time, and from there getting the rubber stamp would be a no-brainer. > Nice, so now thatI've written that down I can wait for Chrismtmas and see > what Santa Sandro will bring ;-) Love it! Bet he's developing a white beard now... Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 00:27:57 UTC