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

Re: Abstract syntax: an attempt

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:36:36 +0100
Message-ID: <3B2C6C14.83066EED@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

Thanks for this.  One question:

Graham Klyne wrote:

> NOTE:  "reification" is deliberately called out as a distinct syntax
> production, so that there is a place to hang the semantics that distinguish
> it from any other collection of facts.  There is some syntactic ambiguity
> here that needs to be resolved at some level;  e.g. adjusting the abstract
> syntax so that rdf:subject, rdf:object, rdf:predicate can appear *only* in
> a production for R (and not for A).

In M&S 1.0 the statements of a reification (i.e. the rdf:type, rdf:subject,
etc ...) are no different from other statements.  What difference are
you considering introducing here?

Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 04:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC