Re: RDF API 1.0 Draft / signing RDF content

Sergey,

I really appreciate your work on the RDF API.
I have played around a bit with GINF and I am very interested in a proper
database implementation for 'RDF'.
In relation to databases I write 'RDF' between quotes because RDF is a
serialization syntax, meant to be used in documents (temporary (messages)
or persistent) and not in databases.
Large RDF documents are an improper way of simulating databases. This
remark refers to the RDF/WordNet discussion.

A very quick and unripe response to your RDF API 1.0 draft:
why don't you use the RDF terminology: Statement instead of Triple? Model
instead of RDFModel? I miss the explicit definition of Property: being an
extension of Resource it certainly is a central entity in RDF.

On your issues of addressing: please see my recent posting on this issue
"Resources and URIs": let us not make it more complicated than necessary.

I also want to make a plea for an interface Schema, as an extension of
Model. A Schema as a container for resources of core RDF only.

Should we propose a package org.w3c.cg containing Node and Arc interfaces
as a basis for RDF and an integration level for other (existing, like
WebKB-GE, Notio, CharGer?) Conceptual Graph modeling tools?

Kind regards, Rob.

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 13:26:12 UTC