Re: EARL 0.9

Dan Brickley <> wrote:-

> Notation3 is an experimental cute hack from TimBL and DanC;
> if you like I can raise this at the next SW CG meeting.

Yes please. Ugh, I only just got this message after I sent the
experimental schema, and I made some comments about the stability of
N3 in there that you might want to refer to [1], and also there was a
little bit of dialogue on #rdfig about it [2].

> If thw WAI ER find N3 sufficiently more appealing than RDF
> (or XML and RDF) that's certainly something we need to know
> about.

Personally I'd go for Notation3 every time, only that it isn't
guaranteeably stable. If it were, the only advantage that XML RDF
offers to it as far as I can tell is XSLT transformation. Apart from
that, an RDF model is an RDF model - a triple is a triple is a triple.
Just go for the easiest format you can find.

> A few people have mentioned a desire to see N3 stabilise (eg.
> to use inline in RDF-related specs), so maybe this is worth
> persuing. Does go against the general XML tide though...

I think that XML RDF would be better for when you have a lot of global
data transfer, because XML is a lowest common denominator: there are
loads of XML parsers out there. But Notation3, because of its stripped
down syntax, is excellent for internal data representations, general
processing, and for human to human transfers, such as hacking on
lists. I think that moving Notation3 onto the standards track would be
a good way out of the current situation. Heck, it seems like a good
enough tool for repair, maybe ERT could take it on [3] :-)

Whatever, I'm glad that EARL is being bumped on a little bit.

[3] I'm kidding.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <> .

Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 18:18:57 UTC