Re: RDF Scoping Mechanism

Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>> Obvious question, regardless of implementations, is there any chance 
>>> of getting that scoping mechanism in to RDF through W3C to rec?
>>> Any rough ideas how long that process may take? (I'm assuming the RDF 
>>> Semantics are bug-less and this would just be an addition).
>>> My logic here is that if other serializations or even something 
>>> N3-like were to go through standardization, then work would probably 
>>> have to start on getting said scoping mech in to RDF sooner rather 
>>> than later.
>> Well, from the standards track point of view, one could add things 
>> incrementally to RDF 2.0, 2.1, etc or one could just standardize N3 as 
>> it is, within minimum changes, focussing on code which has been 
>> working for many years.  That is generally an very accepted way to 
>> make a standard.    Get n3 1.0 nailed as a standard. Demonstrate that 
>> it can be considered a superset of RDF. Demonstrate its use for 
>> carrying RIF.  Standardize some built-in function ontologies. Set up 
>> an agenda for any later developments to be done after  basic N3.
> How many implementations of N3 are there? How many N3 reasoners have 
> been built, and how do they compare in performance to, say, commercial 
> Prolog engines or high-end FOL reasoners? Obviously N3 is an important 
> data point, but I think we should cast our net wider.

Since N3 is already here, spec'd, understood and has a good reference 
implementation that has been used for years, surely it would be an easy 
hit to just push through as a standard. Even if the net could be cast 
wider surely this could be done under RDF 2.0, N3 2.0 or something else 
that supersets both RDF and N3 (which the 2.0 versions could align with).

I guess my questions is, what reason is there not to push N3 through as 
a standard?



Received on Saturday, 3 July 2010 18:01:00 UTC