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

Activating lower layer issues

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:04:28 +0100
Message-ID: <3B38CEAC.559E1562@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Now that we have got a partition of the problem space, I would like to see
us moving forward on the issues we have in the lower layers.

A core of our work is going to be a simple representation of an RDF graph.  We
need a simple language for unambiguously expressing an RDF graph.  We can
then define the meaning of other RDF languages, such as RDF/XML as a transform
to this simple language.

We have such a language already.  It is n-triple.

We also need to define the semantics of RDF, and since we already have
n-triple, it seems simpler, less work and clearer to define the semantics
of n-triple rather than use something different.

n-triple was conceived for the purpose of writing test cases.  As such, I
think it represents the intuitions of at least some of us, of what needs
to be represented in the lowest layers of RDF.  However, we haven't
up till now considered it as the basis for the core definition of RDF.
We have issues with it that remain to be resolved.  These are:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xmllang

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

I would therefore like to activate these issues, and to reflect the decisions
we make in update to the specification of n-triple.  I'd like some volunteers
to own these.

Graham, you have made a proposal for an absract syntax and semantics.  I am
assuming that you feel pretty neutral about the actual concrete form of 
the syntax and that n-triple can represent everything you need at the
syntactic level.  If that is so, then we can focus on the question of
reification on the semantics rather than the syntax.

Yesterday we also activated

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources

I think this is more of a semantic question, but it does affect the syntax
of n-triple.  I'd also like a volunteer to own this one.

Having got the syntax of n-triple agreed, we can then move swiftly on to
address its semantics.  I remain hopeful that we can resolve both the syntax
and semantics questions by the end of the face to face.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 14:06:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:17 EDT