W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Outcomes from Jan 2 telecon

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:44:58 -0500
To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Cc: "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "'Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20070103174505.D133B4EFD5@homer.w3.org>


> >> Justifying slotted syntax based on RDF makes little sense to me 
> 
> But there is a clear sense of slots in RDF descriptions. 
> Consider, e.g., the following description (in some fictitious
> RDF syntax):
> 
> description about=RIF
>   type=W3C-WorkingGroup
>   startdate=2005
>   chairs={CW,CSMA}
>   progress=slow
> 
> > I don't know where that requirement came from, I found it odd when I 
> > first read it, too, but note that RDF does NOT have a relational 
> > semantics. 
> 
> Sure, but the concept of slots does not depend on relational semantics.
> And it's clear (I hope not only to me) that the OO/(RD)F-Logic concept 
> of slots is more important to RIF that the relational one.

+1  (and that matches my understanding of that text in the charter)

     -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:45:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:35 GMT