- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:25:19 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
At 12:24 PM 3/20/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>* Is adding 'contexts'/whatever a good idea?
>
> Use cases would help here too; the widespread use of N3 {}
> (TimBL calls formulas) is an indicator.
I have surveyed some uses in my document (which was circulated as personal
notes, not to do with this WG):
http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html
In particular, section 5.4:
http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html#xtocid-6303979
>* Would these be required to implement RDF or optional?
>
> I suspect they'd have to be optional, in the way RDF Schema is optional.
I think optional, too, in that a (syntactic) subset that deals with ground
facts should be just like CURRENT rdf.
>* Is it a good idea to make these changes at this time in the WG process?
>
> Don't know; if this starts taking too long, too much energy, we
> should consider punting.
> (Although if we don't do it now, it won't be till a successor WG)
A good question.
I'll punt the question, but suggest a process: interested parties might
work on a note to extend/accompany the RDF core work - if it comes together
easily then we can look to publish as part of the RDF set; otherwise it
gets deferred and maybe published as a NOTE and/or merged with an RDF V2
effort.
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 08:33:32 UTC