W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: RDF Abstract Syntax: a strawman

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 09:06:14 -0500
Message-ID: <3B0FB856.4EA8997B@w3.org>
To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
CC: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
> > RDF. (http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDFAbstractSyntax.html#RDF-MS)

I applied the idea of abstract syntax to RDF
and found that it matched quite straightforwardly;
triples stayed triples:

  http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFAbSyn.lsl
  $Id: RDFAbSyn.lsl,v 1.5 2001/03/30 18:42:44 connolly Exp $

Heck... it's short enough to include the jist of it here:

RDFAbSyn: trait
  includes
    URIclient,
    % RDF abstract syntax uses URIs for symbols

    % a formula is a set of atoms (arcs);
    Set(Atomic, Formula for Set[E])

    Atomic tuple of
      predicate: Term,
      subject: Term,
      object: Term
    % this is called a Statement (also: arc?)
    % in the RDF 1.0 spec
    % hmm... are predicates
    % limited to constants?
    % The RDF 1.0 syntax suggests
    % so, but n3 doesn't have that
    % restriction

    Term union of const: URI, ex: Existential
    % The RDF 1.0 specs sorta
    % call these resources, but
    % resources are the things
    % that terms denote.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2001 10:06:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:38 UTC