- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:58:53 -0400
- To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Leo, * Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com> [2004-08-29 20:47+0200] > >We thought of that. But slipping in such a huge change to RDF > >in an existing syntax wasn't where we ended up. > > > >I noticed that Named Graphs extends RDF in at least two ways: > >1) RDF triple subjects can be literals > >2) RDF triples are quads (sic) > > > >so it's really Named non-RDF Graphs. > > > >For reference, RDF triples are defined at > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-triple > >starting "An RDF triple contains three components:" > > > and why can't we change this? > > reification syntax is "not practical" as we see above in the thread. So > why can't we change the RDF spec and add a quad spec, together with a > RDF/XML and N-3 serialization. > > who wants this, too? The RDFCore specs are finished, fixed and stable. I'm not against the idea of people exploring possible RDF-based successor specs that improve the ability to exchange provenance, but please don't talk about this in terms of "changing the RDF spec". The triple-based approach has been developed since 1997, and the new RECommendations we finalised earlier this year were an important landmark. If implementors and users come up with good proposals for new standardisation efforts, W3C could look into doing new work, but let's take care not to destabilise what we have already achieved... cheers, Dan
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2004 18:58:53 UTC