- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:59:20 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, misha.wolf@reuters.com, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hello Dan, others, Below some more on denotations vs. graphs. At 09:03 03/06/26 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >Hi Martin and company, > >The RDF Core WG discussed this stuff last Friday >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0156.html >and I took the ball to get back to you. > >First, to clarify a bit... >The RDF specs specify two relationships: >(1) between an XML document and an RDF graph, >aka hunk of syntax composed of literal terms, URI terms, >bnode terms, and the like > >(2) between those terms and what they denote >in an interpretation. >It would be useful to know if making the denotations >work out to be the same would suffice, or if >your requirement is actually that the graphs >work out the same. While I still don't want to claim any kind of knowledge about denotations, I think that I seem to remember that in the last call draft, in the graph and in N-triples, all types had language attached, but the denotation said that language was only relevant for the special type used to represent XML literals. This seemed to have confused a lot of people, to the extent that the RDF Core WG decided to fix it. (Unfortunately, rather than actually fixing it by removing the language information in the graph from all types except the one used to represent XML literals, they threw out the baby with the bathwater and removed it everywhere.) If differences between the graphs and the denotations cause this kind of confusion, it seems that it would be much better to be avoided. [What are the other kinds of cases where the graphs and the denotations are different?] Regards, Martin.
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 09:00:30 UTC