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

Re: RDF changes

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:21:20 +0100
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF62E66DA6.6D1530E2-ON41256A35.004D5526@bayer-ag.com>


Mike Dean has made a nice test case for reification at
http://www.daml.org/2001/04/reification/

[although I think that the n3.rdf should look more like

<!-- Processed by Id: cwm.py,v 1.29 2001/02/28 20:45:26 timbl Exp -->
<!--     using base file:/daml/reification/n3.n3-->


<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns="file:/daml/reification/n3.n3#">

    <rdf:Description>
        <rdf:is parseType="Quote">
            <rdf:Description about="#subject">
                <predicate1 resource="#object1"/>
            </rdf:Description>
        </rdf:is>
        <predicate2 resource="#object2"/>
    </rdf:Description>
    <rdf:Description>
        <rdf:is parseType="Quote">
            <rdf:Description about="#subject">
                <predicate3 resource="#object3"/>
            </rdf:Description>
        </rdf:is>
        <predicate2 resource="#object2"/>
    </rdf:Description>
    <rdf:Description about="#subject">
        <predicate1 resource="#object1"/>
    </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

isn't it?]

BTW I'm very much in favor of that kind of RDF
(in a new namespace)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/





fmanola@mitre.org@INTERNET@w3.org on 04/20/2001 11:33:51 PM

Please respond to fmanola@mitre.org@INTERNET

Sent by:  w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org


To:   w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org@INTERNET
cc:   w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org@INTERNET
Subject:  Re: RDF changes
This sounds like a sensible idea to me.  It would be a useful rough
classification of the issues, along the lines Brian suggested earlier.
For one thing, a formal semantics of just the triple model should be a
relatively straightforward exercise (e.g., using those developed for
DAML+OIL).  It would also be worthwhile to get a more detailed picture
of which existing uses of RDF would be disturbed by which changes.  For
example, how much do existing implementations use reification, and
exactly how do they use it?

--Frank

"R.V.Guha" wrote:
>
> In the spirit of considering changes to what exists, I'd like to propose
>
> that we  at least consider the following:
>
> RDF M&S puts too many things in one "layer". Maybe we should
> have a core which does nothing but define the triple model (and
> maybe a syntax). Then comes schema concepts like Class, domain
> etc. Then come layers for container, reification, etc.
>
> This will help us put RDF on a firmer logical basis, help explain it,
> help implementations, ...
>
> Maybe the new thing is not called RDF, but xRDF or something like
> that.
>
> guha
>

--
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2001 09:21:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:04 EDT