- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:13:58 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common Logic, or something based on it. Pat On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote: > Ian Davis wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, >>> but not >>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs >>> by those >>> who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your >>> company took >>> a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have >>> implemented a >>> better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects >>> internally in >>> the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for >>> there to be >>> no further change for the rest of the world and for all future >>> time. Who >>> knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this >>> change is >>> made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? >>> >> I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment >> in >> the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level >> change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and >> deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling >> with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 >> years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our >> investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of >> us >> also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology >> direction. >> I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general >> logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move >> towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data >> expression >> in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 >> implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have >> with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues >> between >> them) > > Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who > adopts N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat > says it seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few > syntax bits and the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try > and get graph literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this > again in 2020 and wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have > them :) > > my how this has came full circle, > > Best, > > Nathan > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 14:15:33 UTC