W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: pfps-16, proposed resolution (revised)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:45:50 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 22:27 09/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > Here, I find it difficult to match changes exactly with issues raised.  In
> > his comments, Peter raised a number of objections about the comparison 
> with
> > database and n-place predicates, and the changes were made to address 
> those
> > concerns.
>Looking in the archive I found:
>where Peter seemed mainly concerned about ill-thought claims concerning
>expressive power. Deleting the single sentence addresses that problem.
>I can't see any others in the archive - what I am missing?

The relevant messages are:

which I interpreted to embody a complaint that RDF does not express the 
same as an N-ary predciate.

>The LC text does not claim that the RDF representation is equivalent, merely
>that it is an expression of, an n-place predicate or a n-column table.

Well, I thought that was part of Peter's problem.  For this point in this 
particular document, I thought it was sufficient to indicate that the 
binary predicate form could be used to express the facts commonly 
represented by (say) an n-column database table, which I think it does.

>The primer does not deal with this problem, which is why I thought we had 
>text in the first place.

I'm not sure, now, what "this problem" is, that is not covered by the 
proposed revised text.


Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 12:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC