Re: Natural RDF

I will have to spend quite a bit of time on this to begin to understand, so
cannot add anything except that it seems very useful.
I very much liked the link to 'pataphysics.

Adam


On 1 April 2011 07:56, Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com> wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> Just for fun I decided to put together a proof-of-concept doc to see what a
> purely syntactic definition of RDF might look like.  The basic idea is
> pretty simple; just define a meta syntax, some relations on graphs (shape
> isomorphism, congruence), and a bunch of "reduction" rules (a/k/a
> inferencing rules, transformation rules).  The rules are modeled on the
> introduction/elimination rules of natural deduction.
>
> It's not yet complete but is sufficiently detailed to establish the
> plausibility of the approach.  I think.  The result looks pretty promising
> to me; I suspect a rigorous, simple, and clear definition of RDF without the
> model theory stuff could probably be done in under five pages.  Comments?
>
> RDIL: RDF with a Human Face<http://blog.mobileink.com/2011/03/rdil-rdf-with-human-face.html>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gregg
>