[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: patterns vs. identifiers

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:40:28 -0400
• References: <r01050300-1015-8219B2A2B38B11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]><3D61D2F2.2CB5D5DF@p...>

[Paul Prescod]

> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> >
>
> I don't see the distinction you're making. I see RDF and the other
> semantic web technologies as fundamentally about pattern matching. IMHO,
> they exist primarily to help programs pattern match.
>
> It happens to work at a higher level of abstraction than XML pattern
> matching technologies. Also, RDF's XML syntax adds another layer of
> indirection. But consider the pattern matching that's going on in the
> following RDF/N3 data. I haven't declared any uncles or nephews (and not
> all of the brother relationships) but based on patterns, the
> implementation figures out the rest. You could have various complaints
> about RDF but that it lacks pattern matching is not one of them.

Although this is N3, it is not RDF, because RDF itself has no "implies"
capability built-in.  I say this just as a reminder to people who do not
know RDF that Paul's example is not the only way to use RDF, and you do not
have to be expert at logical expressions.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Next by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• Previous by thread: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by thread: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread