Nathan wrote:
fyi: TimBL has just updated
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html to now read:
3- 'When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the
standards (RDF*, SPARQL)'
.. 'The basic format here for RDF/XML, with its popular alternative
serialization N3 (or Turtle).'
To clarify that N3's good for Linked Data
Hmm.
Why not:
'When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, leveraging
standards (e.g., RDF*, SPARQL etc.)'
OR
'When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using
standards (e.g., RDF*, SPARQL etc.)'
Methinks the tweak above makes Linked Data more inclusive and less
confusing.
We really need the wisdom of Solomon here, really :-)
Why do we need RDF inextricably bound to Linked Data? There's no upside
to such binding. Lots of downside courtesy of confusion by conflation etc..
Kingsley
Best,
Sandro Hawke wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no
choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in
some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus
process. RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business
rules format.
RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation
syntax that looks like N3. RIF includes triples which can have
literals as subject, of course. (In RIF, these triples are called
"frames". Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called
frames, technically. But they are defined by the spec to be an
extension of RDF triples.)
-- Sandro
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
