- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:31:25 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 > Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Here are the reasons I voted this way: >> >> - it will mess up RDF/XML > > No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of > representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already > the case. > Yes! +100 we all keep saying RDF isn't RDF/XML don't we..? Perhaps, RDF is really N3, with N3 Rules etc which expand it, and then different serializations support subsets of that - the RDF/XML spec already appears to be only a spec for RDF/XML not RDF (broadly speaking) maybe it just needs that said in a normative way so we can get on and build what we all really need, define a core RDF non serialization specific Rec/Spec then go from there - nobody says each serialization *must* handle all of RDF, but perhaps levels of conformance could be added to each serialization spec - has graph literals/formulae/nested graphs Y/N - has literal subjects y/n - supports rules y/n etc Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 21:32:26 UTC