- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:04:28 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Now that we have got a partition of the problem space, I would like to see us moving forward on the issues we have in the lower layers. A core of our work is going to be a simple representation of an RDF graph. We need a simple language for unambiguously expressing an RDF graph. We can then define the meaning of other RDF languages, such as RDF/XML as a transform to this simple language. We have such a language already. It is n-triple. We also need to define the semantics of RDF, and since we already have n-triple, it seems simpler, less work and clearer to define the semantics of n-triple rather than use something different. n-triple was conceived for the purpose of writing test cases. As such, I think it represents the intuitions of at least some of us, of what needs to be represented in the lowest layers of RDF. However, we haven't up till now considered it as the basis for the core definition of RDF. We have issues with it that remain to be resolved. These are: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xmllang http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure I would therefore like to activate these issues, and to reflect the decisions we make in update to the specification of n-triple. I'd like some volunteers to own these. Graham, you have made a proposal for an absract syntax and semantics. I am assuming that you feel pretty neutral about the actual concrete form of the syntax and that n-triple can represent everything you need at the syntactic level. If that is so, then we can focus on the question of reification on the semantics rather than the syntax. Yesterday we also activated http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources I think this is more of a semantic question, but it does affect the syntax of n-triple. I'd also like a volunteer to own this one. Having got the syntax of n-triple agreed, we can then move swiftly on to address its semantics. I remain hopeful that we can resolve both the syntax and semantics questions by the end of the face to face. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 14:06:29 UTC