- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:32:41 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: [...] > > On syntax I note that Jim suggested actively using N3. If we wish to do > > this, we may wish to standardize N3 at the same time, since the current > > specs are rather loose working documents from TBL and DanC. This could be > > done similarly to how RDF Core have created n-triple. > > Frankly N3 scares me. It has this mystique, but there are many differing > specifications of exactly what it is, and there are no semantics at all for > some of its constructs. I suggest not touching N3 with an eleven-foot pole. N3 scares me too. ;-) I sure like it as short-hand; it's really hard to write XML correctly in email and IRC. But Peter's right that there's no real specification of N3 in traditional logical terms. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 12:33:56 UTC