Alternative RDF Syntaxes (n3, ...)

> > 2.  RDF is not necessarily verbose: the RDF syntax in the current W3C
> >     spec is verbose, but other RDF syntaxes are much less so (eg n3,
> >     as Jos de Roo pointed out).
> 
> Any convenient pointers to a basic N3 spec?

n3 is still very much in development, defined by a combination of Tim
B-L's notes and code, and code a few other people have written.   I
view it as a convenient way to read/write RDF triples, but still very
low-level.  
    abstract rdf :: Machine Language (eg System/360)
    RDF/XML      :: Cobol
    n3           :: Symbolic Assembler

I pick System/360 because Cobol maps 1-1 to the instruction set, as I
recall.  Cobol is much easier to read and write, in the language
notions of the day.

n3 is not yet even a macro assembler (it's still basically 1-1), let
alone C. 

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html is rather formal (Tim's)
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html is very straightfoward (Tim's)
http://www.w3.org/2001/03/flaten3/ is my lex/yacc/C++ parser for it

My parser was written largely in an attempt to clarify what the { }
structure means.  Tim's code reads such things in, but wont spit them
out as ordinary triples, which mine does.  My code uses the
interpretation that { <a> <b> <c>.  <d> <e> <f>. } denotes a set which
has an enumeration which is a DAML list of two elements which are
rdf:Statements, as given.  

   -- sandro

Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 11:56:08 UTC