- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:26:30 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Hmm. > >Why shouldn't that go at the beginning of the RDFS-Compatible >Model-Theoretic Semantics section? It appears to me that OWL/DL, when >written in N-triples, Not N-triples; say RDF triples. > is also an RDF semantic extension. Yes, OK. But use http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#DefSemanticExtension which is the last-call frozen version, and check the wording there before you decide, as it has been tightened up somewhat. What is now correct, I think , is that OWL-full and OWL-DL are both semantic extensions but that the latter is syntactically restricted. >Also, I'm confused as to the distinction between a collection of N-triples >and an RDF graph. It appears to me that the former is better specified >than the latter and thus should be used in preference to it. No, the RDF WG decided long ago that the graph syntax was normative and that N-triples is NOT normative and so should not be referred to as an official syntax for RDF. The official line is that any syntax for RDF must map to the 'abstract' graph syntax and that two expressions that map to the same graph are to be treated as syntactically indistinguishable. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 12:26:35 UTC