- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:13:23 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[This message is as much about issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph as anything else...] Pat Hayes wrote: > > > > >abstract syntax: > >> > terms: > >> > constants (URIs w/fragids) > >> > string literals > >> > bnodes (existentially quantified variables) > >> > statement: > >> > term term term. > >> > >> We've already gone into why this simple a syntax does not work. > > > >Really? pointer? example? > > It's in the archive somewhere. OK, I'm aware there has been discussion along those lines; I haven't been convinced by it. I thought you were suggesting that the WG had made a decision along those lines. > First, having literals on arcs doesn't > make sense. Er... do you mean you don't find it appealing or intuitive, or that it conflicts with something in a technical sense? I suggest IEXT("foo") is empty, and similarly for all literals; I think that captures the intuition that literals shouldn't be used as properties. > Next, we need a way to say when the same node is being > used in two places, so we need nodeIDs or some such, even on > literals. We do? I don't think we need anything called "node" in the abstract syntax at all, let alone "a way to say when the same node is being used in two places." > Third, most seriously, having bnode labels on arcs > requires some notion of scope (in the graph, not the Ntriples doc.) It's there in my message; you left it out: > > > > formula: > >> > statement* > I > would add that it forces us to incorporate nodeIDs (actually better > called arcIDs in this case) into the RDF graph itself Really? >, which is a > 'slippery slope' idea that several people didn't like: Frank Manola, > I believe, was one. I don't like the idea of arcIDs either. > >It works to my satisfaction, after considerable study > >and implementation experience. At least two other > >WG members also said they prefer this abstract syntax. > > > > I would like it too if it could be made to work. I don't see why it cannot. > If we weren't > restricted to simple graphs and obliged to only use urirefs as names, > then it would work fine. I don't understand what you mean here. [more on the datatypes stuff separately...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 11:13:06 UTC