- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:35 -0400
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Thomas B. Passin wrote: > > > > Ah, back to quads. I'd like to be able to identify triples, too. In fact, > I remember thinking during the recent thread on "dark triples" (was that > here or on rdf-interest?) that the concept didn't seem workable to me > without being able to identify actual triples and to make statements about > them. Maybe I just didn't understand something crucial. > Well I think that colored triples, or more properly quads, are necessary for RDF to work on the web http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002May/0123.html, but that issue is orthogonal to "dark triples" which merely serve as _syntactic triples_ i.e. non-assertions, whose meaning would need to be defined by _some other_ specification e.g. WebOnt/OWL. There would be no general need to be able to make statements about such pieces of syntax/language. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:14:23 UTC