- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:14:01 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Aaron, I guess all you propose is possible, and reasonable. When I briefly studied the denotational semantics of programming languages many years ago (a topic I feel I understand better now than I did then ;-), which was a kind of model theory, I recall that small additions to the language whose semantics were being defined could result in a disproportionate increase in the semantic descriptions of expressions in that language. My resistance here is based on my perception of what will lead to simpler semantics for RDF. I guess the model theory will tell. #g -- At 12:08 PM 7/17/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote: >On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 10:08 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>(a) how is one to represent such a node in N-triples? >>Currently, there's no obvious way (apart from what you suggest above). > >Well, the obvious way seems to me to be: > ><foo> . > >>(b) having selected an N-triples representation, some kind of semantics >>must be defined -- it seems rather pointless to take special steps to >>define a form and then say it adds nothing to the meaning. > >The semantics are that the resource identified by <foo> exists in the >domain of discourse. > >-- > "Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace > <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/> ><http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 14:42:21 UTC