On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 11:00 -0500, Chris Welty wrote: > I suppose we don't really need to discuss whether we should > investigate an "RDF 2.0", but rather what kinds of requirements > various RDF users have that they would like to be considered (I'd like > this thread to be less "+1" and "-1" messages, and more "I'd like to > see RDF support x...") Adopt SPARQL's data model for all future Semantic Web standards -- for all SW protocols and serialisations. The major differences between SPARQL's data model and RDF are: * Explicit support for named graphs * Literal subjects * Blank node predicates (Though it might be a good idea to phase out blank nodes.) -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:30:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:04 UTC