- From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:15:08 +0200
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <bgrosof@MIT.EDU>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <eric@w3.org>, <connolly@w3.org>
> > So, syntax is > > bad if used as a replacement for its other missing > > theoretical counterparts. > > Otherwhise, it is just a convenient way to express semantics. > > Precisely. And I was of course at the disadvantage of not having > been present during the BOF and other discussions, but privious > proposals that I've seen regarding using XQuery for RDF have > amounted to operating directly on the RDF/XML. > > So I got (apparently needlessly) concerned. Patrick, I'm glad we are both on the same line. In fact, as you say, so far previous proposals didn't mention models at all (and, kinda stressed the "syntax" component.... even in the title...!;) They were probably giving the model correspondance as implicit, but yes, there's the need to be clear it's all about models after all. And, I hope some people will find this challenging and entertaining enough to start considering this hybrid approach to RDF-Query :) So, both on the semantic side, with syntax as our fork! ;) -M
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 09:16:09 UTC