- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:19:10 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 08:05 PM 11/13/01 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: >> terms: >> constants (URIs w/fragids) >> string literals >> bnodes (existentially quantified variables) >> statement: >> term term term. >> formula: >> statement* [...] >Now, that last idea seems to me to basically break the graph syntax >proposal; there really isn't any point in having a graph syntax if we have >to include a labelling device to provide a lexical way of indicating >identity, rather than relying on the graph structure itself. We might as >well just give up on the F2F decision you cite above, and use Ntriples >(suitably relaxed, as you suggest) as the primary syntax. Don't get me >wrong; I can live with that; I have no trouble with bound variables, and >the MT can handle existential properties. But there is considerable social >evidence that many people have a lot of trouble with it; and more to the >point, I really think that it amounts to a reversal of the decision about >making the graph primary. It certainly is a rejection, in effect, of the >*reasons* why that decision was made, viz. to get rid of bound variables >(local names, anonymous things that had names anyway, skolems, whatever >you want to call them) from the primary syntax. . Dan, would it break your mental model if the above N-triples-like syntax was modified to be: terms: constant (URIs w/fragids) string literals bnodes (existentially quantified variables) statement: term constant term. formula: statement* ? I think that can be used to specify graphs in the sense Pat is using them. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> __ /\ \ / \ \ / /\ \ \ / / /\ \ \ / / /__\_\ \ / / /________\ \/___________/
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 07:37:09 UTC