- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:33:37 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: >> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice >> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other >> serializations of N3 to come along. > > RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in > some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus > process. RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business > rules format. > > RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation > syntax that looks like N3. RIF includes triples which can have > literals as subject, of course. (In RIF, these triples are called > "frames". Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called > frames, technically. But they are defined by the spec to be an > extension of RDF triples.) Excellent, so there's no need to mess with RDF itself for a while? We can let RIF settle in for a couple years and see how it shapes up against people's RDFCore 2.0 aspirations? Dan
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:34:15 UTC