Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

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.


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