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: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:24:09 +0100
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFGEPDDKAA.danny.ayers@btinternet.com>
>>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.

Going a bit far there - most RDF folks take away their own interpretation,
which so far hasn't been too problematic because the XML parser (or cwm)
doesn't comlain.

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

It's usable in its present form - whether it's shovellable is a different
matter. In a lot of respects XML stinks, but it is usable.

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

Common understanding is probably beyond human beings. Machine
interoperability on the other hand...

>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.

It's coming...
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2001 21:29:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC