- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:50:51 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
My view is that exactly one spec should contain a normative defn of the RDF graph. Then this belongs there. From the model theory perspective the graph is syntax. From the syntax perspective the graph is (data) model. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pat Hayes > Sent: 25 April 2002 15:27 > To: Brian McBride > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: notation for literals > > > >At 11:39 25/04/2002 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > >[...] excellent summary snipped > > > >>but as Pat said, the MT can consider literals opaque once the > >>equality rules are clear. > > > > > >I was thinking equality rules should be in the mt. > > Well, I could write a paragraph trying to capture Dave's summary and > insert it into the section on graph syntax. It would be a bit of a > detour, but that entire section is already a kind of meander in any > case. I guess I assumed that this would fit more naturally in the > syntax document somewhere. > > Brian, your call. > > 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/~phayes > >
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:51:17 UTC