Courier New[Patrick
Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690,
0000,0000,EEEEpatrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> To me, using "^^" makes it clear that ^^ is a syntactic thing
> whose semantics are in fact equivalent to "^" except that
> the formal triples representation is different.
>
> So Jos, you can if you want dismantle the triple into two.
> You will have a semantically equivalent graph.
Well surprise surprise. I guess my suspicions about ^^ were correct.
If you suspicions were that RDF was to perverted by the addition of
extra triples in the definition of an RDF parser then you were wrong.
Don't panic!
Courier NewI reiterate my
opposition to the use of ^^ in the abstract syntax.
I find the use of juxtaposition very messy for the parser, and
potentially
confusing for users. It is much safer in the syntax to use a piece of
punctuation.
That syntax point is completely irrelevant to question in the rest of
your message.
Courier NewA typed literal
node may *not* be "dismantled" into
additional triples, even if it might be deemed to be semantically
equivalent to an expansion into a bnode with datatype property
(and I am not convinced that it is).
I am sorry, I clearly didn't distinguish well enough between things you
do inside a parser and things you do outside.
I was suggesting that one could do what Jos wanted outside the parser.
If you are not convinced that, for a given datatype, a property can
relate a member of the value space and a member of the lexical space,
then you must have thought of something I haven't thought of.
Courier NewIf an
application wishes to define rules to infer those additional
triples, fine,
That is just what we are talking about here. You can't stop Jos
treating his data
in that way.
Courier New but the ^^
delimiter does not function in any way
like ^ in N3.
Exactly it does not. It is syntax in the RDF spec, not a triple
If they had ben the same, then I would have suggested ^ not ^^.
Courier NewI would like
either for the delimiter to be removed entirely or
for there to be an explicit statement that such "dismantling"
of the typed literal node is not licensed by the RDF specs.
The RDF spec's job is to define the set of triples which corresponds
to a given serialization.
Not to define what people do after they have got them. Do not blur
the line.
I was saying that Jos could do them *after* the RDF parsing stage.
This draws away from RDF spec some criticsism of it being clumsy,
demonstrating that it can be converted into a different form.
IMHO
Tim
Courier NewPatrick
Arial
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Next message:
5555,2222,9999Patrick Stickler:
"Issuette for tomorrow's aggenda"
* Previous message:
0000,0000,EEEEPatrick Stickler: "Re:
Datatyping literals: question and test cases"
* In reply to:
5555,2222,9999Tim Berners-Lee: "Re:
n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon
2002-10-18]"
* Next in thread:
0000,0000,EEEEDan Connolly: "Re:
n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon
2002-10-18]"
* Reply:
0000,0000,EEEEDan Connolly: "Re:
n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon
2002-10-18]"
* Reply:
0000,0000,EEEEpat hayes: "Re:
n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon
2002-10-18]"
* Messages sorted by:
0000,0000,EEEE[ date
] 0000,0000,EEEE[
thread ]
0000,0000,EEEE[ subject
] 0000,0000,EEEE[
author ]
* Other mail archives:
0000,0000,EEEE[this mailing
list] 0000,0000,EEEE[other
W3C mailing lists]
* Mail actions:
0000,0000,EEEE[ respond to this
message ]
0000,0000,EEEE[ mail a new topic
]