W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Quick reviews of new abstract syntax?

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:28:04 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b10b9ee119dd306@[65.217.30.130]>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>well, I think this rather fundamental...
>
>   whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something
>   about a certain thing, we have to use, in this
>   sentence, not the thing itself but its name or
>   designation -- Alfred Tarski
>
>So I believe that all those "certain things" are
>rdfs resources, wether they be literal values
>or URI referenced things, the names are just
>different designations

Yes, but we get to decide what names and designation - what syntactic 
forms - are legal in our language. And we have, in our wisdom, chosen 
to retain the shot-in-the-foot restriction that literals cannot be in 
the subject position. It is perfectly clear what they would mean if 
they were, and it is also fairly clear that allowing them there would 
have solved a host of problems that we have conspicuously failed to 
solve. But those are other discussions that belong in a different 
time and place than two weeks before final call.

Pat


>
>-- ,
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
> 
>                                                                                                                 
> 
>"Jeremy                                                                                       
>                     Carroll"             To:     "Jos De_Roo" 
><jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>                     
>                     <jjc@hplb.hpl.       cc: 
><w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>                                          
>                     hp.com>              Subject:     RE: Quick 
>reviews of new abstract syntax?                   
> 
>                                                                                                                 
> 
>2002-11-05                                                                                    
>                     03:39 
>PM                                                                                      
> 
>                                                                                                                 
> 
>                                                                                                                 
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks for opening a can of worms :) ... comment declined.
>
>Jeremy
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
>>  Sent: 05 November 2002 14:54
>>  To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
>>  Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>  Subject: Re: Quick reviews of new abstract syntax?
>>
>>
>>
>>  > Anyone up to doing a very quick review of the modified abstract syntax
>>  ...
>>  >
>>  >
>>  http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-11-05/rdf-co
>>  ncepts.html
>>
>>
>>  re: #section-Graph-syntax
>>  one comment I have is on
>>    The subject may not be an RDF literal.
>>
>>  for a plain literal maybe OK, but a typed literal
>>  can be a perfect subject
>>  e.g.
>>    "10"^^xsd:int xsd:int "10".
>>
>>  -- ,
>>  Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>>
>>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 19:27:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:59 EDT