W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: datatypes and MT (#rdfms-graph)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:47:19 +0000
Message-ID: <3BF16AB7.2030904@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Dan,

Dan Connolly wrote:


>>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."

That looks like it.  I'm sorry about not being more precise first time round.

> Are you suggesting that issues #rdfms-graph is actually closed,
> then?



has not been closed.

> 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

Ah, I see.  I read that originally as a proposal for something akin to an 
n-triples like syntax.  Pat and others are far better qualified than I to 
comment on whether this is an appropriate definition of a graph.

> I believe that discussion on this issue is still in order.
> Please confirm or clarify why not.

If you have an issue with how the model theory defines a graph that would be in 
order.  If there is sufficient *new* understanding affecting the decision to use 
  graphs as the syntax, it would also be in order to request the issue be revisted.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 13:47:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC