- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:13:01 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > Ah, that is a nice idea. It has some odd consequences, though. Graphs > with number labels cannot be stored inside computers, send over > packet-switched networks, printed, etc... They have to be Platonic > graphs, not data structures. And why stop at numbers? ;-) This sets my antenae twitching. One of the problems with the earlier M&S document's formal model was that (at least in my interpretation of it) the use of platonic statements, platonic resources etc led to all sorts of horrible confusion. This is one of the reasons I felt the need for a model theory and why I preferred to have it based on n-triples - because that was clearly a concete syntax. I've bought the idea that the graph is also a concrete syntax, so using that is fine. I personally would be real nervous if we were losing the clarity of that distinction between a concrete syntax and what it means. We'll be back to graphs containing resources and questions about what exactly is a resource, which so far, we have brilliantly managed not to need to answer. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 08:17:44 UTC