W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:08:59 +0100
Message-ID: <42C5082B.6010908@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

Michael Kifer wrote:

> First, it is not too late to fix the mistakes in RDF. As far as I know, the
> implementations of N3 don't respect the existential semantics of blank
> nodes. And you kept saying in this thread that N3 is an RDF language.

Don't go there.

First, even if there was some reason to change the specification of RDF, it 
should not be within the scope of any putative rules working group to do so.

Second, many RDF implementations do try to respect bNode semantics. For 
example by representing bNodes in stored triples by skolem constants and 
bNodes in queries by query variables. They will *also* allow programmatic 
access to the implementation objects that represent bNodes for the purposes 
of manipulation and editing but that doesn't detract from the existence of 
conformant APIs.

I'm not sure why you are particularly singling out N3, and I am not a CWM 
expert, but my understanding was that CWM *does* attempt to respect the 
semantics of bNodes.

Dave
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 09:10:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:12 GMT