- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:29:08 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- 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>
will look into ISO Common Logic to get familiar then - fwiw so long as it supports everything RDF Semantics supports, and allows graph literals, I'm easy and can change at any time :) Pat Hayes wrote: > 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
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 14:30:21 UTC