- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:39:40 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote:
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > I thought we had a kind of working consensus to use the graph as the
> > 'primary' syntax.
>
> We have more than that. We have a decision made at the F2F
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions
There are several decisions there. Which one are you referring to?
This one?
"The model theory will be defined for RDF graphs, not n-triples."
Are you suggesting that issues #rdfms-graph is actually closed,
then? I don't think it's clear what an "RDF graph" is at all.
I think that's what we're discussing. I'm suggesting this
as a definition of an RDF graph:
terms:
constants (URIs w/fragids)
string literals
bnodes (existentially quantified variables)
statement:
term term term.
formula:
statement*
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0030.html
I believe that discussion on this issue is still in order.
Please confirm or clarify why not.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 12:42:00 UTC