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

Re: Draft Partitioning

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:45:58 +0100
Message-ID: <3B2F8FD6.EAF79C8F@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


Frank Manola wrote:

[...]

> [Is there an actual definition of n-triple you can point me to?  If so,
> maybe I could be more definitive about these answers;  but maybe not!]

There are the original proposal from Dan Connolly and more recently Art's
proposed grammar:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0285.html

> 
> I guess the answer is in two parts.  First, I assume we have to define
> "n-triple" itself (that is, the thing that corresponds to a
> "statement"), along with its components "resource", "predicate", and so
> on.  Aren't those built-in types or classes?

No - a triple in n-triple is a character string.  Rather different from m&s.

>  In other words, I think that the base layer (and the
> current formal model) ought to be reasonably closed, without appealing
> to other specifications to complete the definition of its basic ideas.

I completely agree with that principle.  I think that we can define
n-triple without a notion of type.  You think that's not possible.
How about we try, and if I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer in Sebastapol?

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 13:47:46 EDT

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