Re: RDF Scoping Mechanism

On 7/3/2010 1:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
> 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?

There's a very large cost to standardizing _anything_, so it's important 
to be confident that you're standardizing the right* things. One 
reference implementation is a good start, but it's by no means the only 


* For some relativistic definition of "right".

> Best,
> Nathan

Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 12:07:22 UTC