- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:05:30 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Peter, At 10:17 11/03/2002 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >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. Just so. The Model Theory is not complete. The key decisions on reification and containers have been made however, and these will be reflected in the next WD. The idea here is that we now have a mechanism, which was previously lacking, for formally defining the semantics of RDF. Defects in the model theory can now be raised as specific issues against the model theory document itself. The overall catch all issue, that there is no formal semantics for RDF(S), is resolved by the model theory document (the WG claims). > The current RDF model theory also does >not consider datatypes or the new thinking on RDF literals. To what new thinking are you referring? > Finally, the >translation from RDF/XML to N-triples is performed outside this model >theory, and this translation is quite complex. Just so. It is defined in the syntax document (also as yet incomplete): http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ Do you agree that the development of the model theory resolves the catch all issue as you raised it, that there is no formal semantics for rdf and rdfs. There is now a semantics for RDF. It is as yet, incomplete. Brian
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 11:08:42 UTC