- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:44:51 +0100
- To: "Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: "www-webont-wg <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeff Heflin wrote: >>>Finally, an important issue will be finding a way to map your abstract >>>syntax into XML/RDF and still preserve its simplicity. I believe that in >>>order to get a good, intuitive syntax, we'll have to seriously consider >>>dropping the idea of using triples to represent the language, i.e., do >>>not layer on top of RDF Schema (but this is a point I've already raised >>>in another thread). Jos De_Roo wrote: >> I haven't seen anything in the past 3 years that would motivate >> such an idea, really, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Overview.html Frank van Harmelen wrote: >Jos, >Can you clarify what you mean by "such an idea"? > >Do you not see to the need "to map the abstract syntax into XML/RDF and still >preserve its simplicity" or to " not layer on top of RDF Schema" ? oops, sorry for the confusion Frank, but I meant the latter one i.e. the idea to drop the use of triples to represent the language (also in the perspective of the logic/proof layers) all cases I've seen so far are examples of circular models such as _:x :p _:y . _:y :q _:z . _:z :r _:x but I don't see any problem with that -- Jos De Roo
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 06:45:27 UTC