- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:03:34 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Pat. That is what I was looking for. At least I understand better what's being said. Though it still doesn't quite compute. The N-Triples doc and the description of graphs in the MT are certainly simple. But from the previous version of the RDF Model and Syntax Specification I had thought there were restrictions on the permitted triples. For example, that a predicate must be a Property. Not that this example causes a problem for the model theory. If foo is a class and not a property, I(<foo,foo,1>) is false. Maybe I just need to wait for these docs to be finished. If I read the referenced decision below it does not specify the single place where the syntax of RDF will be defined. The RDF/XML is incomplete in its ability to express RDF. The editor of the RDF Syntax WD will include in that document a clear statement of the RDF graph structures that RDF/XML is unable to represent. Perhaps as a part of that effort, the RDF Syntax WD will provide a complete syntax for RDF triples. - Mike Michael K. Smith EDS Austin Innovation Lab 98 San Jacinto, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78701 Work: 512 404-6683 -----Original Message----- From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:08 PM To: Smith, Michael K Cc: webont Subject: RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL > > I don't think the real issue has anything much >> to do with triples; and since so many people like triples, then why >> not let 'em use 'em, I would suggest. > >> Pat Hayes > >I think it is a mistake to think 'so many people like triples'. Maybe >within the RDF community. But I presume one of our goals is to create a >standard that is adopted by a much wider community. I would assert that the >wider community is using XML syntax. They are writing and using tools that >process XML. Many are, but not all. Every community feels that its particular notation is the endpoint of human evolution, of course. >I will ask this question again: Where does the RDF standard say that its >syntax is defined by triples? Where is the formal triple syntax for RDF? >All I have seen is an XML syntax. What documents have I not read? Go to the RDF WG website and read the current versions of the documents there, especially the MT and the N-triples spec. The WG some time ago decided that the graph syntax (as expressed in Ntriples) was primary, cf. http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-representations Summary: Resolution: On 16th November 2001, the RDFCore WG resolved: * The WG agrees that: - the graph model which is the basis for the model theory - the n-Triples representation of an RDF graph - the diagrams of graphs used in documents such as the RDF Model and Syntax document are currently all equivalent * The WG resolves to maintain that equivalence (this is a statement of intent rather than a certified fact) * The WG notes that the RDF/XML syntax as currently defined is unable to represent an arbritary RDF graph. In particular, the RDF/XML syntax cannot fully represent a bNode which is the object of more than one statement. * The WG believes that extending the RDF/XML syntax so that it can represent all RDF graphs is beyond the scope of its current charter and resolves to postpone consideration of this issue. * The WG actions the editor of the RDF Syntax WD to include in that document a clear statement of the RDF graph structures that RDF/XML is unable to represent. Currently: closed ----- Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 20:03:42 UTC