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

Re: Closing rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (was: RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2001-10-12)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:35:49 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110201331420.20209-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Brian McBride wrote:
> [...]
> >    o Pat seems to reckon the model theory is simpler with a set.  Can we extend
> > the notion of a tidy graph so that it removes duplicate statements.  Any untidy
> > graph has an equivalent tidy graph, and the model theory is defined in terms of
> > that.
> You seem to be discussing this as if issue #rdfms-graph
> were to be resolved as per the Sep model theory WD.
> Please see my 11 Oct suggestion to replace it wholesale, which
> was greeted with at least two voices of support:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0186.html

After having spent some time this week looking at W3C's SOAP (XML
Protocol) work, which seems (their data model is still underspecified) to
use a very RDF-like graph structure, I now have considerable sympathy for
this view. We are already stuck with the 1.0 syntax not being able to
serialize all RDF graphs. While allowing graphs in the MT that are not
currently serializable would be a pain, I believe repeatedly re-doing the
MT to shadow future new syntaxes (SOAP, non-striped syntaxes, ...) could turn
out to be an even bigger pain.

Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 13:36:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC