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 ]