W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: rdfms-graph: Food for thought

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:14:01 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

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.


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>
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 14:42:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC