- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:24:47 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 02:02 AM 7/12/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > All, > > > > With reference to my previous message: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0024.html > > > > there's not been an overwhelming response concerning the key question > > raised, but some muted agreement with the suggestion that this is really a > > syntactic issue. > >I'm perhaps a bit out of the loop, but on this issue, >please don't let my silence go as agreement. I don't. >On the contrary: I consider it essential that the >abstract syntax has a distinguished representation >for anonymous nodes, and that the interpretation >of these anonymous nodes in the abstract syntax >works like existentially quantified variables >in FOPL. > >I've given test cases and running code (n-triples2kif.pl) >to support this position; I believe Pat H and >somebody else agreed with me. Dan, I think you've made a strong case for variables in query expressions. I also think that Pat has argued fairly convincingly that this is logically equivalent to Skolemization -- i.e. substitution of a unique genId. I think these are important issues, but... My main concern is that this is not a clarification of RDF 1.0, but a significant extension of it. Therefore, I ask: (a) is there any respect in which my proposal contradicts M&S 1.0? and/or (b) can you point to ways in which M&S 1.0 supports your proposal to have special treatment of anonymous resources in the RDF model? and/or (c) do you think you have a compelling case for *changing* RDF 1.0 now rather than leaving this issue to be addressed in RDF 2.0? #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 07:36:29 UTC