- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 14:05:11 +0100
- 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. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 09:06:44 UTC