- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:17:22 -0500
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Unfortuantely, the RDF model theory does not (yet) provide an acceptable account of RDF semantics. The current RDF model theory WD (of 14 February 2002) only provides an account for N-triples, and is missing other features of RDF. In particular, there is no treatment of RDF reification or RDF containers in the current RDF model theory. The current RDF model theory also does not consider datatypes or the new thinking on RDF literals. Finally, the translation from RDF/XML to N-triples is performed outside this model theory, and this translation is quite complex. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: RDF Issue rdf-formal-semantics Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:59:49 +0000 > Peter, > > In > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jan/0014.html > > you raised an issue which was captured in > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics > > as > > [[[ > The lack of a formal semantics for RDF and RDFS make it difficult to > construct systems with formal semantics on top of it. > ]]] > > As recorded in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html > > the RDFCore WG resolved: > > that the model theory defines formal semantics for RDF and that this > issue be closed. > > 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 Monday, 11 March 2002 10:18:00 UTC