RDF format

Hey, I can quote rdf format!
<sm:recipient>
Chris Waterson "waterson@netscape.com"
</sm:recipient>
<sm:sender>
Aunt Helga "helga@netcenter.net"
</sm:sender>

These are e mail addresses, these were found in an rdf example
In TE,
message:(
recipient$(Chris Waterson,'waterson@netscape.com'),
sender(Aunt Helga, "helga@netcenter.net"))

The points I make. One, everything converted to  byte character link codes with overloads, the cvs file format on steroids.  Second, I always get syntax wrong from general usage.  Why? Because there are many general usages and they overload the limited number of ugly punctuation marks available.  For example, somewhere in entity land, the colon has one meaning, somewhere else it has another.  The dollar sign popped up once on a standard and I grabbed it before it went away.  

Remember, in graph land, the operator is a matcheable item, graphs retain and pass structure along.  So graphs want operators to be int, fixed size, ready to roll, sqlable.  Graphs like quick look up overloads.  Graphs do  screaming fast movement of thousands of graph per second, they convolve over many layers, so they never want to leave binary format.

And, note of notes, I was forced to use the standard byte quote character to isolate the e mail key word.  I hate quoted text, quotes really means, "Keep this secret from the computer" Out Luddite principle, we will eventually have to adopt the grammatical quoted string. I like the single quotes: ''''' Anyway, this is why I shy from debugging the machine, I need fast syntax, but don't want to look silly trying to reinvent it.

If rdf means anything, then it must mean that e mail addresses can be structured without quotes, otherwise what's the point? How about:
sendto:(NetscapesTable.JoeThePlumber, Some text)

A the end of the day, the graph machine, just next to my feet here, will burp out a message: RDF sendto has arrived! What's the issue, graphs can queue, route themselves, attach to ontology lists, faster and better than e mail servers. More importantly, e mails are bound and secure within TE syntax, they can be unrecoverable during transit when graphs have their own GTP: id for internet traversals. When GTP arrives, then we attack security at one loophole only, the GTP spoof. And we have roving police bots looking for spoofers, ready with counter attack.

How does routing work in G land?
Table bots run around and make sure the look up tables are maximum entropy. Netscape, Google, they run sendto:bots, bot graphs that constantly maintain the best hop/step ontology jump from some output port at their large building to my service provider. Everything converted to ontology graph.