- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:56:54 +0100
- To: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[...] > I agree we need terms in RDF. But declaring that some "triples" are > terms, or fragments of terms, seems like too big a departure from the > current language. For a triple to be a triple in the current sense, > it must be an assertion (or be an assertion when bindings of its free > variables are supplied). Any term that isn't of the form > predicate(a,b) should be dealt with by describing it in terms of > triples. We can always provide syntactic sugar that allows a more > concise representation for human consumption. I fully agree -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 08:57:14 UTC