- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:44:00 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 07:04 PM 6/26/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>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.
Yes, with one proviso:
Some semantics depend on an interpretation of more than one triple used in
concert. Following the style of attaching interpretations to syntax
productions, it may be necessary use a "model syntax" that is more complex
than the minimal syntax needed to describe N-triple.
Otherwise, I fully agree that everything can be based on a concrete,
parseable representation that we call N-triple (an important property of
which is that, modulo trivial matters like statement ordering, there is
only one way to represent any given RDF graph).
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2001 09:29:34 UTC