- 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