- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 21:54:34 +0000
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
On 5 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: > There is a large community that counts on type definitions like this. Almost every math-y paper on RDF includes a (largely redundant) abstract type definition for RDF. These definition that you find in math-y papers are inevitably written in prose text rather than a formal notation, and they inevitably omit certain details that are not relevant to the particular math-y stuff being done in the paper. These omissions are a feature. > I would expect developers in both of those communities to benefit from a terse, comprehensive enumeration of the elements of RDF. It makes it a lot easier to ask "what does my SQL table have to capture?” This enumeration of terms on its own doesn’t explain anything. I doubt that any developer can make sense of it without having a read of the actual prose text in sections 3-5. And if they really want a grammar, why not point them to the N-Quads spec? Best, Richard
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 21:54:55 UTC