- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:19:34 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:54 30/10/03 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >I hope it isn't considered acceptable. Our syntax is constrained by N3??? >That is news to me and I think it is ridiculous. N3 isnt even properly >defined anywhere, it is not a standard and it has virtually a nonexistent >user community outside the W3C itself. I bear the N3 developers no >ill-will, but it is insane for us to be constraining our syntax (and >inconveniencing our potential users) because of undocumented syntactic >vagaries of a few hackers. Pat, I think the point here is precisely that we are *not* constraining the recommended interoperable syntax for RDF (i.e. RDF/XML) by N3, or N-triples, or any other syntax. bNode identifiers, where used, are explicitly specific to particular syntactic representations of RDF. N-triples was clearly *not* intended to be a general-use syntax for RDF (and the I18N folks would have given us a much harder time about it if we hadn't been clear about that), but just an easy-to-process form for test cases. (It's relationship to N3 is one of the things that made it easy-to-process, because of tool availability). One can certainly argue, as you do, that it might be *convenient* for bnode identifier syntax to be consistent across RDF syntaxes, but I think it's clearly not *necessary*, and at this stage of the game to make any unnecessary change is not desirable. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 06:32:58 UTC