[SCL] Approach to a concrete syntax

[pat hayes]

>pat hayes wrote:
>>>Murray Altheim wrote:
>[...]
>>>I see absolutely no reason to believe that there's any difference
>>>whatsoever in XML vs. RDF/RDFS in avoiding these issues. The same
>>>issues for RDF/RDFS exist, and in fact are complicated by the fact
>>>that RDF/RDFS brings with it its own set of semantics which are not
>>>the same as SCL.
>>
>>They are entirely compatible with SCL, although much less 
>>complicated since RDFS is a much less complicated language. 
>>Please, guys, don't confuse the airwaves with hasty assertions 
>>about semantics.
>>
>>>And the fact that after years of trying, many of
>>>the fundamental issues in RDF are not yet resolved,
>>
>>I don't know what issues you are referring to, but RDFS is pretty 
>>tightly specified at this stage and has no fundamental problems 
>>that I am aware of.
>>
>>Pat
>
>And I'm an XML zealot? Please.

Well, what problems are you referring to? It has a tightly defined 
syntax (actually several of them) and a model theory, and there is a 
trivial embedding of RDFS into SCL which preserves the semantics. 
(Well, to be exact, the trivial translation doesn't exactly capture 
the datatypes constraints in the typed literals, but then one wouldnt 
expect it to be able to since SCL doesn't recognize the XSD typing 
(yet :-))

It was quite a lot of trouble, by yours truly, to make sure that the 
RDFS semantics is compatible with SCL, so I tend to bristle slightly 
when I read that there are un-named but dire semantic problems.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam at ai.uwf.edu   for spam