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

Re: Abstract syntax: an attempt

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:52:22 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:36 AM 6/17/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > NOTE:  "reification" is deliberately called out as a distinct syntax
> > production, so that there is a place to hang the semantics that distinguish
> > it from any other collection of facts.  There is some syntactic ambiguity
> > here that needs to be resolved at some level;  e.g. adjusting the abstract
> > syntax so that rdf:subject, rdf:object, rdf:predicate can appear *only* in
> > a production for R (and not for A).
>In M&S 1.0 the statements of a reification (i.e. the rdf:type, rdf:subject,
>etc ...) are no different from other statements.  What difference are
>you considering introducing here?

The fact that a resource that is the subject of a reification quad in some 
way stands for the statement with the given subject/predicate/object.   I 
think that there will be, at a some level, an interpretation function that 
maps resources thus represented to some aspect of the interpretation of a 

I'm not sure how to express this, but I have some vague ideas bumbling 
around in my head.  Hopefully they'll settle into something more concrete 
that I can offer.


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 07:16:13 UTC

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