- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:14:01 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Aaron,
I guess all you propose is possible, and reasonable.
When I briefly studied the denotational semantics of programming languages
many years ago (a topic I feel I understand better now than I did then ;-),
which was a kind of model theory, I recall that small additions to the
language whose semantics were being defined could result in a
disproportionate increase in the semantic descriptions of expressions in
that language. My resistance here is based on my perception of what will
lead to simpler semantics for RDF.
I guess the model theory will tell.
#g
--
At 12:08 PM 7/17/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 10:08 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>>(a) how is one to represent such a node in N-triples?
>>Currently, there's no obvious way (apart from what you suggest above).
>
>Well, the obvious way seems to me to be:
>
><foo> .
>
>>(b) having selected an N-triples representation, some kind of semantics
>>must be defined -- it seems rather pointless to take special steps to
>>define a form and then say it adds nothing to the meaning.
>
>The semantics are that the resource identified by <foo> exists in the
>domain of discourse.
>
>--
> "Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace
> <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/>
><http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 14:42:21 UTC