- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:42:48 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> I don't think the real issue has anything much > to do with triples; and since so many people like triples, then why > not let 'em use 'em, I would suggest. > Pat Hayes I think it is a mistake to think 'so many people like triples'. Maybe within the RDF community. But I presume one of our goals is to create a standard that is adopted by a much wider community. I would assert that the wider community is using XML syntax. They are writing and using tools that process XML. I will ask this question again: Where does the RDF standard say that its syntax is defined by triples? Where is the formal triple syntax for RDF? All I have seen is an XML syntax. What documents have I not read? It would be perfectly reasonable to define a translation from XML to triples in support of existing tools. Or for those people who like to read assembly code. - Mike Michael K. Smith EDS Austin Innovation Lab 98 San Jacinto, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78701 Work: 512 404-6683
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 11:43:38 UTC