W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Introduction: Graham Klyne

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:36:40 +0100
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: GK@NineByNine.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFF22B9D05.0C7B7080-ON41256A2D.0079AFFE@bayer-ag.com>

[...]
> I had the idea also, that it would be good if we were able to provide an
> 'executable specification' of the translation from the RDF XML syntax
> into triples and I suspect this will be easier and clearer if this
> translation is to a very simple syntax.  I've done an informal
> experiment using an attribute grammar with an XSLT implementation and
> that seemed to work ok.

Sounds good, certainly the idea of 'executable specification'.
It reminds me about ISO Standard Prolog (see e.g. the INRIA
ISO Prolog web at http://pauillac.inria.fr/~hodgson/prolog/ )
where the executable specification (the ftp package is at
ftp://ftp-lifo.univ-orleans.fr/pub/Users/eddbali/SdProlog/ )
is a specific implementation of Standard Prolog.
So, all concepts which are implementation defined, implementation
dependent or undefined have received some interpretation.
It's mainly that last point that I wanted to stress, although it
must be possible to write such an executable specification in N3.

Brian, is that informal experiment using an attribute grammar
with an XSLT implementation the one at
http://www.bmcb.btinternet.co.uk/2001/rdf/exec-grammar/spec.xsl ?

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 13 April 2001 18:38:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:03 EDT