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

Re: Abstract syntax: an attempt

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:05:42 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010619110149.0351b830@joy.songbird.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:16 AM 6/18/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> > - in M&S, we need a specific vocabulary to express/use reification.
> > Reification could be defined without relying on vocabularies.
>
>I'm wondering what you mean here by 'relying' on vocabularies.  Reification
>is currently defined using rdf:type, rdf:subject etc.  Those are
>vocabularies.

I think that it would be more precise to say that reification is _encoded_ 
using rdf:subject, etc..  The _definition_ of reification still seems to be 
an undecided issue.

It also seems that some vocabulary-based semantics depend upon the use of 
more than one vocabulary item in concert:  an idea that I think is 
typically captured by "syntax".  (At this point, I refer you to my other 
message in this batch.)

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 07:16:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:12 EDT