Re: rdfms-graph: Food for thought

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