Re: RDF Issue

Brian, here is the requested response:

It is my impression that the words of the decision have been sensibly
chosen and the result sounds good to me. Thanks for the effort to you
and the WG. (It will hopefully also sound good to Stefan Kokkeling, whom
I remember to point out the limitation of the RDF/XML syntax with
respect to bnodes)

Wolfram

PS: Allow one minor remark (which was the reason I distinguished between
formal/data and triple model when I raised the issue): in the
formal/data model (I refer to the RDF M&S spec here, not to newer
developments), it would have made sense to have just a set of resources
as an "instance" of the "model". Could such a set of resources be
represented as nTriple? 
Maybe the question is obsolete now? Anyway, it is probably not very
relevant (though I can imagine that there might be cases where it would
be intersting to just specify a set of resources not embedded in a
container  and not yet related to other resources to provide just
something "to work with").


> 
> Wolfram,
> 
> In
> 
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0036.html
> 
> you raised an issue which was captured in
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-representations
> 
> as
> 
> [[[
> 
> [Equivalence]: There are four RDF model "flavours" (formal/data model,
> graph(ical) model, serialization syntax, triple). To what extend
> (precisely) are these models (not) equivalent? (Problems related to
> anonymity have been discussed, see also below, details need to be
> summarized). Could trying to find transformation grammars be a solution
> (preciseness, determination of equivalence)? Shouldn't this be in a
> "formal" part of M&S spec?
> 
> ]]]
> 
> As recorded in
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0561.html
> 
> the RDFCore WG decided on the following:
> 
> [[[
> o The WG agrees that:
> 
>         - the graph model which is the basis for the model theory
>         - the n-Triples representation of an RDF graph
>         - the diagrams of graphs used in documents such as the RDF Model
>           and Syntax document
> 
>        are currently all equivalent
> 
>     o The WG resolves to maintain that equivalence (noting that this is a
> statement of intent rather than a certified fact).
> 
>     o The WG notes that the RDF/XML syntax as currently defined is unable
>       to represent an arbritary RDF graph.  In particular, the RDF/XML syntax
>       cannot fully represent a bNode which is the object of more than one
>       statement.
> 
>     o The WG believes that extending the RDF/XML syntax so that it can
> respresent      all RDF graphs is beyond the scope of its current charter
> and resolves to postpone consideration of this issue.
> 
>     o The WG actions the editor of the RDF Syntax WD to include in that
> document a clear statement of the RDF graph structures that RDF/XML is
> unable to represent.
> 
> ]]]
> 
> Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue.
> 
> Brian McBride
> RDFCore co-chair

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 10:46:31 UTC