Re: I have a trouble with The RDF Model

I (think I) appreciate what you're saying, but it seems to me that there is 
an important distinction.

When I look at the graph-syntax, URI-references figure very strongly.  When 
I look at the formal model in M&S, as far as I can tell there are only 
resources.

#g
--


At 09:59 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Guha wrote:
>I think this confusion between the graph being the semantic
>thing vs being a higher level syntax is an artifact of the
>extremely limited expressiveness of RDF today.
>
>Without connectives or quantifiers (and no, reification
>does give us a way out of this), there is a certain
>isomorphism between the triple syntax and the semantic model
>(the graph) which is very confusing.
>
>At some point, when we bite the bullet and introduce
>connectives and variables as language constructs into
>RDF, I think the difference between the syntax and
>semantics will become clearer.
>
>guha
>
>Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
>
> > Guha wrote:
> > >  I have a simple (albeit potentially controversial) answer --- it is the
> > > range of the interpretation of RDF expressions.
> >
> > Controversial, indeed ! I'm not sure I dislike it, although :)
> >
> > But strictly speaking, if it is true,
> > then RDF describes Nodes and Arcs, not Resources...
> >
> > So, as I previously posed it,
> > I think the grapoh is the *interpretation* of the XML *syntax*,
> > but it is also a "higher level" *syntax*, whose interpretation is in 
> the world of resources (or entities, or both, I'm not sure)...
> >
> >   Pierre-Antoine
> >
> > --
> > Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists 
> elsewhere in the
> > universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
> > (Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                       Content Technologies Ltd.
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------