W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: yet another simplified RDF syntax: N-triples + abreviation

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:51:02 -0800
Message-ID: <000e01c29481$503a8660$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I think a KR front-end is a good idea and I will be happy to work with anyone who wants to pursue that idea.

For the longer term, it might be useful to make use of the internal knowledge structures of Knowledge Explorer.  I would guess that they are significantly different from the internals of current Semantic Web application programs.

You can find all the source code in the KE download file.  My basic data structure is a record named CONCEPT, located at the beginning of the file KEHOME/src/concept.icn.  I update the download files frequently -- every day if I'm working on some new idea, or polishing the documentation.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Hanna 
  To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:30 AM
  Subject: RE: yet another simplified RDF syntax: N-triples + abreviation



  > I invented KR before I was exposed to XML, and that
  > made me extra sensitive to the difficulty of reading
  > a "cluttered" XML program.  When I want to understand
  > an XML program, I usually begin by (mentally)
  > translating it into KR, which enables me to "get the
  > big picture at a glance".

  This relates to the idea I mentioned earlier of using KR as a front-end on
  RDF applications. RDF and the various ways of encoding it is really for
  machines, not people. For the most part RDF shouldn't be seen by users,
  though obviously someone's going to have to build the layers between the RDF
  and users, and hence the advantages in it using human-readable components
  (URIs, XML or text-based encodings).

  Where KR can be compared (from what I've seen, I still haven't had time to
  play with it unfortunately) to a human-understandable programming language
  like Basic, RDF is more like machine code (with n3 hence being assembly and
  RDF/XML being poorly written C :)
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 07:51:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT