At 07:04 PM 6/26/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >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. Yes, with one proviso: Some semantics depend on an interpretation of more than one triple used in concert. Following the style of attaching interpretations to syntax productions, it may be necessary use a "model syntax" that is more complex than the minimal syntax needed to describe N-triple. Otherwise, I fully agree that everything can be based on a concrete, parseable representation that we call N-triple (an important property of which is that, modulo trivial matters like statement ordering, there is only one way to represent any given RDF graph). #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------Received on Thursday, 28 June 2001 09:29:34 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:18 EDT