>Aaron: >> Oh dear, I sure hope my RDF parser doesn't start returning >> _that_ any time soon. We've built something of a layered >> architecture in RDF, and I want to keep it that way. I see no >> reason an RDF parser should have to believe in the RDF Model >> Theory. Instead, it should just spit out triples for a >> higher-level application to deal with. It should definitely not >> be allowed to start adding or deleting triples (unless >> specifically asked to by the application. >> > >I find this paragraph more convincing now than I did last week. > >It suggests that rather than the conventional concrete versus abstract >syntax distinction, we have a rather richer set of layers: > > > Semantics: Model Theory > Second Level Abstraction: Graph > First Level Abstraction: Triples (Multiset) > Concrete Syntax: RDF/XML & N-Triple > > >I guess last week I was assuming that the first level abstraction was not >useful. Model theory not useful!??! Humph!! Good job I'm a reasonable man, Jeremy. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Monday, 8 October 2001 17:07:19 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:58 EDT