- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:45:50 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 22:27 09/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Graham: > > 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: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0320.html > >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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0154.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0315.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0320.html 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 >this >text in the first place. I'm not sure, now, what "this problem" is, that is not covered by the proposed revised text. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 12:10:21 UTC