Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll <jer...@topquadrant.com> wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already
the case.
Yes! +100
we all keep saying RDF isn't RDF/XML don't we..?
Perhaps, RDF is really N3, with N3 Rules etc which expand it, and then
different serializations support subsets of that - the RDF/XML spec
already appears to be only a spec for RDF/XML not RDF (broadly speaking)
maybe it just needs that said in a normative way so we can get on and
build what we all really need, define a core RDF non serialization
specific Rec/Spec then go from there - nobody says each serialization
*must* handle all of RDF, but perhaps levels of conformance could be
added to each serialization spec
- has graph literals/formulae/nested graphs Y/N
- has literal subjects y/n
- supports rules y/n
etc
Best,
Nathan
