W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

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>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEJNCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> >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").

Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 01:37:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC