- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:31:06 +0000
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 04:43 PM 3/14/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > > 4) A simple and easy to include addition to the syntax is to allow nested > > rdf:RDF elements i.e. as the object of a statement. The contents of a > nested > > rdf:RDF might be interpreted as a collection of reified statements or as an > > "N3 context" whose set of statements might be interpreted by the MT as > > "unasserted". In any case it is a simple addition to the syntax. > >That would be a significant syntax change that we probably can't >justify at this stage in the refactoring of the syntax. It would >also have implications on the model theory since it would probably >change the model. Again, this is heading out of our current charter >territory in my opinion. I agree with Dave that this is out of scope, and would change the model theory, so it's not for the current RDFcore WG. That said, I rather like this idea. As it happens, I've made some notes about extending the model theory to handle N3 style contexts (which I think map quite nicely to this suggestion): http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 12:31:40 UTC