At 04:43 PM 3/14/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > > 4) A simple and easy to include addition to the syntax is to allow nested > > rdf:RDF elements i.e. as the object of a statement. The contents of a > nested > > rdf:RDF might be interpreted as a collection of reified statements or as an > > "N3 context" whose set of statements might be interpreted by the MT as > > "unasserted". In any case it is a simple addition to the syntax. > >That would be a significant syntax change that we probably can't >justify at this stage in the refactoring of the syntax. It would >also have implications on the model theory since it would probably >change the model. Again, this is heading out of our current charter >territory in my opinion. I agree with Dave that this is out of scope, and would change the model theory, so it's not for the current RDFcore WG. That said, I rather like this idea. As it happens, I've made some notes about extending the model theory to handle N3 style contexts (which I think map quite nicely to this suggestion): http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 12:31:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:12 GMT