- 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