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

Re: one line RDF abstract syntax. was RE: RDF core: abstract syntax and semantics - an attempt

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:50:59 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010622223930.036c2b80@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
At 04:32 PM 6/22/01 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>It is evident that there is no clear understanding about what the current
>specification says or means, so I am totally unsure about what the current
>'ground rules' are intended to be.

Barring some exotic edge cases I think the syntax/structure of RDF, per 
RDFM&S, is fairly clear, to the extent that most RDF folks have a pretty 
good idea what is and what isn't valid RDF.

Less clear, I think, is what some of the constructs mean, and how the 
language may be extended with new constructs and new semantics.

>  The effort to find some common
>understanding, I submit, is made my rational discussion of the issues and
>alternatives.

I suspect we may be pursuing the same goal by different (reasonable) 
means.  My approach is to treat syntax mostly as a secondary issue:  I feel 
that for the purposes of defining semantics, the current RDF graph syntax 
is applicable as any other one might define, even if it is less than 
pleasing to use for many practical problems.  Once the semantics are 
understood, I think defining a suitable syntax is technically a doddle.

I really don't think that anything I am trying to do invalidates the work 
you are doing to explore alternative abstract syntaxes, or vice versa.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2001 04:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT