- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:13:21 -0400
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: What is an RDF Query? Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:43:50 -0400 > > Sure. The question I think we're debating in this thread is simply > whether those protocols should use an RDF syntax at the bottom-layer > or not. > We could define a query protocol with an S-Expression syntax, > an ASN.1 syntax, a internet "simple" (a la SMTP) style syntax, etc. This much I agree with wholeheartedly. To a great extent, the syntax doesn't matter much, if at all, as long as some reasonable syntax can be devised for what we want to do. > I > suggest we ignore the syntax and simply say we're using an RDF > assertional graph (knowledge base) to convey the query (and its response). Now I have a real problem. Saying that we are using an RDF assertional graph carries along with it a lot of baggage, at least for human readers. Why not just say that we want to convey a query and a response, and try to figure out what sorts of queries and responses we want to query? Then we can argue about what syntax to use. Yes, I know that syntax issues can cause lots of problems. Yes, I know that it is possible to get into troubles by ignoring syntax issues. However, I think that it is much more likely to have lots of problems by considering meaning secondary to syntax than by considering syntax secondary to meaning. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 15:13:41 UTC