- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:47:19 +0000
- 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? Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph 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. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 13:47:22 UTC