- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 09:06:14 -0500
- 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