Re: WOWG: first language proposal

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,

Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>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
>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