W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Another try.

From: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:03:18 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <20120221.120318.240354892.wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
To: andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:44:56 +0000, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> said:

    > If I understand the quad proposal, then all existing
    > vocabularies are technically undefined because they never define
    > P(S,O,G), only P(S,O).

Back in December, I experimented with a tuple-store that understood a
variant of n-triples (mostly as an exercise in learning Haskell
properly). It had datatypes of URI, Bnode, Literal and Nil and
supported predicates of any arity.

Is it useful define such a nil value and say:

  For all (P, S, O), P(S,O) -> P(S,O,nil)

Does this connect to SPARQL's idea of a default graph in a useful way?

-w

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 12:03:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT