- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:36:59 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
If we can define the desired semantics based on the simple N-triple form, I
have no objection.
#g
--
At 11:06 AM 6/28/01 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>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.
>
>Graham, I have a strong worry about doing this in the revised
>standard. "used in concert" is just a way to say that there is a
>syntactic construction which is not in fact explicitly encoded in RDF
>content. It would mean that the criteria for wellformedness were not
>explicitly represented in the syntax, unless we introduced some new syntax
>(not just some new syntactic classes) to actually encode the ranges of
>these 'larger' structures. In effect, it allows for arbitrarily complex
>syntactic specifications to be smuggled into the RDF model invisibly. To
>call the n-triple encoding 'parsable' is misleading, if some of those
>'parsings' are not in fact in conformity to the syntactic classes to which
>the semantics is attached.
------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:47:11 UTC