- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:08:00 +0000
- To: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>
- CC: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Yoshio FUKUSHIGE wrote: > Hi, > > I remember we discussed about the semantics > accompanied with our reification syntax? > (Am I wrong? Please excuse me) > > If my understanding is correct, the semantics of > "reification" differs from RDF/XML and N3 > (in the latter it might have to be called "quoting?") I believe that's right - graphs can be quoted. Reification (of statements) is the use of the reficiation vocabulary rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object. > > My question is which semantics do we accompany > to our syntax (what was the resolution) ? > > Literal reading of the document leads to the answer > of saying: "we mean the former, for it's syntax sugar > for RDF reification." The syntact sugar is just for RDF reification. Some people use it and the syntax should be a help to them. Applications that do not use reification just won't use it. > > But our syntax is so close to N3 (by now), I wonder > if we step forward (out?) to quoting. The RDF dataset (GRAPH in other words) approaches this for access to named graphs in the data. I don't know what cwm (et al) does about matching quoted graphs in a rule head. > > In case we should not do so, I think commenting > it(=the difference) in the doc is worth doing. I'm not sure how to do this. The document is about what SPARQL/QL is, not what it is not. Including things excluded can lead to confusion in the reader. A specification, to me, is not a justification of the decisions, it is a description of SPARQL/QL. > > How do you think? > > Yoshio > fuku@w3.org > fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com Andy
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 14:08:22 UTC