I will have to spend quite a bit of time on this to begin to understand, so cannot add anything except that it seems very useful. I very much liked the link to 'pataphysics. Adam On 1 April 2011 07:56, Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com> wrote: > Hi list, > > Just for fun I decided to put together a proof-of-concept doc to see what a > purely syntactic definition of RDF might look like. The basic idea is > pretty simple; just define a meta syntax, some relations on graphs (shape > isomorphism, congruence), and a bunch of "reduction" rules (a/k/a > inferencing rules, transformation rules). The rules are modeled on the > introduction/elimination rules of natural deduction. > > It's not yet complete but is sufficiently detailed to establish the > plausibility of the approach. I think. The result looks pretty promising > to me; I suspect a rigorous, simple, and clear definition of RDF without the > model theory stuff could probably be done in under five pages. Comments? > > RDIL: RDF with a Human Face<http://blog.mobileink.com/2011/03/rdil-rdf-with-human-face.html> > > Thanks, > > Gregg >Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 18:49:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:27 UTC