Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
 Shelley Powers wrote: > > > > > Jonathan Borden scripsit: > > > > > There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics > > further, they > > > are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a > > > polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- > > you can't even > > > argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to > > argue -- the > > > ultimate in damned by faint praise. > > > > Umm, I think you are severely over-interpreting. It's quite common for > > a formal semantics to be incomplete, either because the omitted items > > are intractable, or because they're just too annoying to specify. > > That doesn't mean they aren't part of the deal. > > I agree with John -- Jonathan, I'm fairly sure you're reading more into this > then what the original authors intended. I have heard this directly, in public, from the (original) author. Prior to that I used to think that reification was just ugly. I am cc'ing him so he can correct me if I am saying this too strongly. >...Personally, I believe that neither > construct is discussed further in the semantics document because each is, in > a way, a re-interpretation of already defined aspects of the RDF model. ??? Huh ??? The RDF Semantics document *is* the definition of the RDF "model". It was written specifically to fix ambiguities which have resulted from interpretations such as yours of the RDF M&S (i.e. old version). > Containers are a typed node that has additional processing semantics > attached. No. Absolutely not. What "processing semantics" do you think apply? The only special significance of RDF containers is that they have a terribly broken syntactic transformation that occurs during the parse phase <rdf:li> -> <rdf:_3> However, these semantics have to do with implementation, not data, > and as such really don't have a place within the RDF semantics document. A > container can be replaced with a typed node and get the same RDF graph, but > without the processing baggage (or benefit) attached. There is no 'new' > semantics -- the notation is more a convenience then new conceptualization. > Same with reification if you look at the RDF graph of a reified statement > and break it down into its parts. > Please, if you are writing a book about RDF, don't say these things because you are just going to confuse anyone and everyone who believes what you say. You have a particular obligation to thouroughly read http://www.w3.org/rdf-mt/ . It is a very well written document. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
