- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:07:02 -0500
- To: michael.smith@eds.com
- Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Well right now N-triples only show up in the test cases document, so I don't see how they can be considered to be ``the'' syntax. peter From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com> Subject: RE: WOWG: Charter issues (was RE: RE: parseType="daml:list" doesn 't cut it) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:26:39 -0600 > > After all, the primary syntax for RDF is (still) defined in XML. > > This is one of those things I seem to keep tripping over. > > I thought it was asserted that triples are "the" syntax for RDF because > there were assertions that could be made using triples that could not be > made using the XML syntax. And not just statements that amount to renaming > of bnodes. > > If this is wrong, I stand corrected. > > - Mike
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 12:07:48 UTC