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

Re: Is N-Triples Normative? [Was: Re: model theory (W3C publication stuff)]

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:57:28 -0400
Message-ID: <3B8E9AA8.FD3CBFBD@mitre.org>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I understand the points you guys are making.  However, to add a related
issue, the current RDF/XML Syntax draft says "This process [that is,
mapping from the XML syntax to the RDF model] is not yet complete, in
that the final step is defining for each syntax production which RDF
statements are added to the resulting model (if any)."  How are we going
to describe "which RDF statements are added to the resulting model" for
these productions?  Pictures of graph snippets?  If we use Ntriples
here, and other places where it appears we want to be *really* precise
(like in test cases), it sure seems funny to say it isn't normative.  On
the other hand, what we *really* mean to be normative here is the
translation from XML/RDF to RDF, not any particular way of representing
the RDF.  (Would saying we describe RDF statements in terms of
particular collections of binary predicates in mathematical logic be any
better?  That's more or less what Ntriples are anyway, and may sound
less like another "syntax").  In any event, given the current state of
affairs, we need to be damn careful that we understand all the ins and
outs of the various graphs and their mappings to Ntriples.

--Frank

pat hayes wrote:
> 
> I entirely agree with Dan here. I just wanted to have an informative
> (but stable) reference, not to imply any kind of endorsement or
> normativity. I only use Ntriples as a way to describe graphs, since
> its quicker to type than to draw a picture.
> 
> We could eliminate Ntriples from the MT document altogether and give
> all the examples as explicit graph pictures, like the M&S does.  I'd
> be willing to do this, if the WG feels it would make the document
> more accessible. I guess I was assuming that we were going to
> 'publish' Ntriples in any case, even if it wasnt somehow endorsed as
> a standard, but if that assumption is overly naive then the JPEG
> alternative might be preferable.
> 
> I await guidance.
> 
> Pat
> 
> >Art Barstow wrote:
> >[...]
> > > In the Open Issues of [2]:
> > >
> > >  http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/#intro_issues
> > >
> > > The issue "is N-Triples normative?" is raised.  Given the
> > > MT's reference to N-Triples it seems the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > What do the WG members think about this issue?
> >
> >I don't really know how to answer questions of the
> >form "is X normative"? Here are some questions
> >I can answer that are perhaps relevant:
> >
> >       1. does our specification of n-triples
> >       constrain the set of XML documents that
> >       conform to the RDF 1.0 spec?
> >
> >       No.
> >
> >       2. does our specification of n-triples
> >       constrain software that conforms
> >       to the RDF 1.0 spec?
> >
> >       No.
> >
> >       3. does the RDF 1.0 spec say that RDF/xml
> >       is the only syntax in which RDF may be expressed?
> >
> >       No.
> >
> >       4. does/should the model theory *depend* on
> >       the definition of n-triples?
> >
> >       No; it's independent of any particular
> >       serialization of RDF.
> >
> >       5. is it useful to use n-triples as
> >       an editorial device in the model theory document?
> >
> >       Yes, I think so.
> >
> >       6. should the model theory draft cite the n-triples
> >       definition from the testing draft?
> >
> >       Yes; given 4 above, I suppose this should
> >       be an informative citation, if we're going
> >       to distinguish informative from normative
> >       citations at this point in the drafting process.
> >
> >
> > >  [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ntriples/
> > >  [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/
> >
> >--
> >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> (650)859 6569 w
> (650)494 3973 h (until September)
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

-- 
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 Thursday, 30 August 2001 16:05:33 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:50 EDT