- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:07:44 -0600
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Where's the complexity that you see, Aaron? Abstract syntax: An RDF document is a series of statements, each made up of three parts, any of which can be a resource, identified by a URI, the first and last of which can be an existential variable identified by a local node identifier, called a bNode, the last of which can also be a Literal, which consists of a string, a language tag, identified by a two-letter language code from [cite] and a datatype, identified by a URI of an XML Schema datatype [cite]. That's off the top of my head; I probably missed a lot and got stuff wrong! Syntax: For RDF/XML? I don't even want to go there! Model Theory: You can safely: take any triple away; replace any blank node with a URIref, literal or new blank node; combine two RDF documents you believe in (as long as you rename the bNodes). That wouldn't be too bad if it was said in that fashion; again I probably confused a lot. > A "simple" competitor to RDF might be a rather straightforward > graph-based language - but explanations of how that should be used to > provide rich consistent semantic structures are almost certainly not > going to be. I don't really follow you. Here's what a simple competitor would look like: Abstract syntax: An X document is a series of 3-tuples, where each member is either a resource (identified by a URI) or a string. Model Theory: You can safely take any triple away and combine two X documents. Syntax: Each 3-tuple is separated by a ' .\n', each member is separated by ' ', the resources are identified by '<' + URI + '>' and the strings by '"' + string + '"'. [Give example.] Curtain. Then there'd be a primer with some words on use, maybe a page or two. -- Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com] "Curb your consumption," he said.
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 11:07:46 UTC