- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:45:58 +0100
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Frank Manola wrote: [...] > [Is there an actual definition of n-triple you can point me to? If so, > maybe I could be more definitive about these answers; but maybe not!] There are the original proposal from Dan Connolly and more recently Art's proposed grammar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0285.html > > I guess the answer is in two parts. First, I assume we have to define > "n-triple" itself (that is, the thing that corresponds to a > "statement"), along with its components "resource", "predicate", and so > on. Aren't those built-in types or classes? No - a triple in n-triple is a character string. Rather different from m&s. > In other words, I think that the base layer (and the > current formal model) ought to be reasonably closed, without appealing > to other specifications to complete the definition of its basic ideas. I completely agree with that principle. I think that we can define n-triple without a notion of type. You think that's not possible. How about we try, and if I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer in Sebastapol? Brian
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 13:47:46 UTC