- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:22:19 -0400
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > > I took an action to draft a partioning of our problem space. > > RDFCore: A base abstract syntax and a semantics for it. The abstract syntax > is equivalent to n-triple (can n-triple be that abstract syntax). Nothing > more - does not include type, containers, reification. Am I correct in thinking this means that the Core includes the content of the curent P158 to P176 in the formal spec? Is type then introduced under vocabularies (as a standard property used to indicate type information)? This starts to get into the basis of my comment at the telecon, that we might want to include some stuff currently in Schema in these descriptions. I was specifically thinking of some of the ideas discussed in Section 2.1, and the core classes described in Section 2.2, of Schema. Section 2.1 (correctly) notes the similarity of the RDF schema type system to that of object-oriented programming languages, starting off with some built-in types (or classes) like "resource", "class", "property", and their relationships, and then allowing for user-defined types/classes. Those built-in types and their relationships (I claim) ought to be part of the model (or abstract syntax) specifications (I don't insist on subclasses or subproperties; just the basics). --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 15:22:57 UTC