- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:21:42 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at, danbri@danbri.org, semantic-web@w3.org, ivan@w3.org, parcher@fosi.org
2008/9/3 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>: >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/cwm.tar.gz > Hmm. That appears to be the source for CWM. Which file should I go to > in the tarball? Is there any formal relationship between CWM and N3? As far as I am aware, formal no, formative yes. >> >> Dunno, is http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/ 'full' enough? > My view is that the document is horribly inadequate as a specification > of N3 as a representation language. Hmm - as I understand it, the Turtle subset of N3 is intended to map 1:1 with RDF (I may be wrong on this, but I suspect it can do some of the edge cases that RDF/XML syntax can't handle), which appears to be rather a well-specified representation language. Does RDF + N3 extensions break its monotonicity? >> I would imagine that depends which constructs of N3 are used. (I >> believe in general you'd get multiple graphs + rules) > > Oh? This is a bit surprising. I had thought that an N3 document could > be processed into a single RDF graph. I would be interested to see > where the multiplicity comes from. I believe multiple graphs can be (genuinely) quoted in N3 as formulae - IANAL, strictly speaking does that mean it's all one graph? >> > However, I believe that there >> > is no chance that I (or anyone else) could use solely that document to >> > implement reliable reasoning in N3 or to develop a formal meaning for >> > N3. > Of course, I *could* implement something that might look a bit like N3, > if I made a whole bunch of assumptions about the logical underpinning of > N3. ...and why not? Could be fun. But that is not the way things should work. The N3 document should > provide these underpinnings to me. Why so? Offhand I can't think of a single spec of this nature that got everything right first time. I didn't start the thread, I was just responding to > the claim by Phil Archer in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Sep/0001.html > that N3 is "fully specified and understood". There exists at least one person for whom I suspect that is true. Ask Tim :-) Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com ~ http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 18:22:19 UTC