RDF 2.0: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Pointers for the discussion: | Pointers for the discussion: | ||
RDF 2 Wishlist, Sandro Hawke <i> | RDF 2 Wishlist, Sandro Hawke <i>10/30/2009</i><br> | ||
http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/ | http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/ | ||
RDF 2 Wishlist, W3C mailing list post <i>11/1/2009</i><br> | |||
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009Nov/0001.html | |||
Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0", Chris Welty <i>1/13/2010</i><br> | Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0", Chris Welty <i>1/13/2010</i><br> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 16: | ||
== Topics == | == Topics == | ||
* Replacement of reification with named graphs | * Replacement of reification with named graphs | ||
* deprecation and removing of | I personally find reification a real eyesore and hard to look at in RDF, but then again I am not suppose to but machines should do the job. So the question would be if they are performant or not. An obvious observation is that they let your data increase significantly in size. I like the higher order arity relations in LISP for formalizing contexts as first class objects in principle. | ||
* removing | * deprecation and removing of containers (Bag, Alt, Seq) | ||
* graph literals | * removing blank nodes | ||
* named graphs, graph literals in specification | |||
Latest revision as of 09:18, 14 January 2010
Pointers for the discussion:
RDF 2 Wishlist, Sandro Hawke 10/30/2009
http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/
RDF 2 Wishlist, W3C mailing list post 11/1/2009
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009Nov/0001.html
Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0", Chris Welty 1/13/2010
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jan/0068.html
RDF2Wishlist collection started by Dan Brickley 1/14/2010
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF2Wishlist
Topics
- Replacement of reification with named graphs
I personally find reification a real eyesore and hard to look at in RDF, but then again I am not suppose to but machines should do the job. So the question would be if they are performant or not. An obvious observation is that they let your data increase significantly in size. I like the higher order arity relations in LISP for formalizing contexts as first class objects in principle.
- deprecation and removing of containers (Bag, Alt, Seq)
- removing blank nodes
- named graphs, graph literals in specification