On Sun, February 26, 2012 19:31, Paul Tyson" <phtyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
>
> So W3C's grudge against LISPish notation was not only aimed at RDF; they
> chose to re-implement in XML notation, at some loss of functionality, a
> perfectly good Scheme-like transformation specification. But after all,
> XML is just uglified s-expressions. And LISP's power comes not from
> parenthesized lists alone, but from a very large language specification
> that says how to interpret those lists. So maybe we're not in such a bad
> state after all.
>
> Your assertion that RDF is flawed because it was not done LISPishly
> puzzles me. RDF is an abstract syntax that constrains your utterances to
> triples, (01)
Forcing triples is non-LISPish & quite constraining. (02)
> forces you to use URIs as the first two components, (03)
LISP does not have this constraint. (04)
> and suggests some
> weak semantics that include interpreting the components of
> a triple as grammatical subject, predicate, and object. You can write
> your triples any way you care to--the W3C provided a starter set of
> concrete syntaxes, and is adding more. How would LISP have rectified the
> specification? (05)
LISP does not restrict one to triples. It also allows predicates on
datatype values. (06)
Sure, you can convert lists to nested sets of triples:
(pred ARG1 ARG2 ARG3 ARG4 ARG5) =>
(pred ARG1 (list ARG2 (list ARG3 (list ARG4 ARG5))))
-- and then make it 10 times a long if you want to put it in XML. (07)
Such formatting makes rules a lot harder for a human to express
or read. At least this human. (08)
-- doug f (09)
>...
>
> Regards,
> --Paul (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (011)
|