Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

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

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:30:44 UTC