- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:36:29 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> >My point being that using dark triples to construct purely syntactic > >substructures within RDF graphs then begs the question of how to describe > >the syntax of those syntactic substructures. > > Well, it doesn't address that question, but then it doesn't address a > whole lot of other questions either. It wasn't aimed at that issue. I > don't think it would interfere with any proposals along that > direction, however. I was not clear enough - I would find it much easier to support a dark triples proposal that looked like a general purpose extension mechanism for RDF rather than one that was a special fudge for OWL. Requiring the syntax of an extension to be described in English rather than in a machine readable way takes us back to things like rdf:parseType being an extension mechanism that fails to give any true extensibility (because an RDF parser doesn't know how to read the english in the daml spec that descibes the extension of parseType="daml:collection"). Jeremy
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 01:37:50 UTC