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

Re: RDFCore WG 2001-06-01 Teleconference Agenda

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 14:05:11 +0100
Message-ID: <3B1E2A87.74F39AD4@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Graham Klyne wrote:
> But, yes, for example, the syntax (defined simply in terms of triples) is
> not rich enough to support expressions with quantifiers.  One can use the
> triples to encode some richer syntax (e.g. as one uses character sequences
> to encode programming language constructs) that is capable of supporting
> this, but that would be a different syntax hence a different language.

This is how I see it too.  What do you see as the value of encoding that
richer syntax in triples?

> So, to define a useful level of semantics, there must be a sufficiently
> rich syntactic structure.

I still think that grounds facts are useful.

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 09:06:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:01 UTC