Re: RDF Statements as floating Cons Cells

Dan Brickley wrote:


>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, pat hayes wrote:
> [..]
> > Maybe we should stick to using RDF as a simple ground-data language,
> > and just build or use something else altogether for doing more
> > complicated stuff.
>
> Shove in a version number ("RDF 1.0") and that's pretty much my view. For
> simple ground-data, the node'n'arc stuff's really handy, but it is painful
> to watch the contortions people have to go through when they decide to
> represent everything and anything as RDF 1.0 triples.
>

I couldn't agree more.

That said, rather than define a new semantics for each and every RDF like
syntax: n-triples, N3, RDF XML etc., it would be very useful to have a
common abstract syntax in which logic could be expressed.

-Jonathan