Re: RDFCore WG 2001-06-01 Teleconference Agenda

Graham Klyne wrote:
[...]
> 
> But, yes, for example, the syntax (defined simply in terms of triples) is
> not rich enough to support expressions with quantifiers.  One can use the
> triples to encode some richer syntax (e.g. as one uses character sequences
> to encode programming language constructs) that is capable of supporting
> this, but that would be a different syntax hence a different language.

This is how I see it too.  What do you see as the value of encoding that
richer syntax in triples?

> 
> So, to define a useful level of semantics, there must be a sufficiently
> rich syntactic structure.

I still think that grounds facts are useful.



Brian