W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Dirt simple RDF was: Re: A plea for peace.

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:43:54 -0400
To: jborden@mediaone.net
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010405194354Z.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Subject: Dirt simple RDF was: Re: A plea for peace. 
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:57:40 -0400

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >
> > OK, so you are claiming that transitivity, type inference, subtyping, and
> > domain and range are not RDF.  That still leaves open-world, infinite
> > domains, identity, URIs, reification, containers (especially alternative),
> > distributive referents, and URI patterns.
> Obviously the model/mapping to SQL is simplified, and I'm not disagreeing on
> the desirability to work from something different than RDF M&S 1.0. I'm
> happy to remove reification (and replace it with a URI syntax for triples
> for example) as well as with containers. 

OK, now we are talking.

If we make RDF be triples of URIs, and appropriately define URIs, and
jettison all else, then we will have a neutral, level structuring
mechanism, that can be given good data semantics.

Of course, I will end up using this stripped-down RDF to encode syntax,
not represent information, and define my semantics on top of RDF.


> Why is string ordering needed (for the moment)?

It is not, it is just that the RDB model includes the string ordering,
which is not valid for URIs, and thus the two models do not line up.

> -Jonathan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 19:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC