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

Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:09:07 -0400
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050701150907.94130CB5D3@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>


> 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.

Ha, but this is only an approximation -- this is my whole point!
So, they don't implement the semantics anyway.

> 
> 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.

See above.


	--michael  
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 15:12:45 GMT

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