W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:20:43 -0800
Message-ID: <4B4FC2EB.3030602@topquadrant.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Toby Inkster wrote:
> 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.)
>
>   

There is a subtle technical argument in favor of the graph model 
permitting literal predicates too.

(As an aside it is:

 p subProperty "foo"
q sameAs "foo"
q subProperty r
s p o

To conclude
s r o
in a triple based system
it is helpful to be able to state
s "foo" o

As is, the arbitrary limitations of RDF graph specified in RDF Concepts, 
means that some implementations may have subtle bugs.
).

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 01:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:04 UTC