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

Re: Draft Partitioning

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:03:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3B2FA205.1EDBDA4B@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> 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

Thanks.

> >
> > 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.

I agree that the *syntax* is a character string (as defined by the BNF),
but I don't think that quite captures the *semantics*!  And I thought in
the base layer we were defining an abstract syntax *and semantics*.

> 
> >  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?

That's fine (right or wrong, I expect to have a few beers in Sebastapol
and maybe buy a few for other people too)!  I just want to make sure
(see above) that any "definition" adequately covers the semantics too. 
I'd be interested in seeing what you have in mind;  my ideas about how a
type system would work aren't all that well worked out anyway. 
(Actually, I can imagine a model-theoretic semantics that uses subsets
of the domain of discourse rather than actual types, so if that's the
sort of thing you have in mind that could work for me, depending on some
of the details about what goes in higher levels).  

--Frank

-- 
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 Tuesday, 19 June 2001 15:08:27 EDT

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