Re: RDF::RDF Proposal

Paul M Jones wrote:

Hi, It's past the comment time, I know, but I don't see that RDF needs to be its own top-level category. I understand that XML is not appropriate, because there are other formats for RDF. For example, why would one of these existing categories not be appropriate?

    Services::RDF (RDF is obviously a web service)

its not really a webservice in the classic sense .. atleast it needs a transport layer added on to be useful.

    Net::RDF (because it's a network information format)

well there is the netapi, which may eventually make it into PEAR as well, which deals with providing a "simple network interface to remote RDF models"

    File Formats::RDF (because there are other formatting tools in here such as vCard and Ogg)

yes, a large chunk of RDF deals with defining a serialization formaet (RDF, NTriple, N3 etc.). then again this is the most trivial part of RDF. the big deal in RDF is being able to make statements and to infer other things from them. there is also a query language (RDQL) also supported by this proposal. So its also a database.

I want to be clear on this before I vote one way or another. Thanks.

so as you can see RDF is a whole world of its own. it doesnt make sense to split things into several categories imho, nor does it make sense to squeeze everything into one categorie. if you insist on having a category "semantic web" might be the best fit. however i would not want to prefix everything with SemanticWeb. I much rather prefer having RDF as one category prefix of the Semantic Web top level category. As I have shown there is already so much to RDF that I think it really deserves its own top level category prefix. regards, Lukas