Re: generalized RDF comment from David Booth

I like this wording with a slight modification, more stylistic than contentful to the second paragraph. "Incidentally" is hardly correct and strikes an odd note in a technical document. 
Generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets differ from normative RDF triples, graphs, and datasets only by allowing IRIs, blank 
nodes and literals to appear anywhere as subject, predicate, object or graph name. 
BUT is it correct to allow literals as graph names? This is not required by any generalization I know. 
Pat


Antoine Zimmermann , 10/2/2013 1:10 AM:
Le 02/10/2013 05:17, Peter Patel-Schneider a écrit : 
> I would hope that David would be satisfied with a change like: 
> 
> A generalized RDF triple is an RDF triple except that subjects, 
 
David is not pleased by "A generalized RDF graph is an RDF graph", I  
don't think he would prefer this much. 
 
To be honest, I am a bit annoyed by this phrasing too. 
 
Why not simply redefined generalized RDF graphs not mentioning RDF graphs: 
 
""" 
A generalized RDF triple is a triple having a subject, a predicate and  
object that each can be an IRI, a blank node or a literal. A generalized  
RDF graph is a set of generalized RDF triples. A generalized RDF dataset  
comprises a distinguished generalized RDF graphs and zero or more pairs  
associating an IRI, a blank node or a literal to a generalized RDF graph. 
 
Incidentally, generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets only differ  
from normative RDF triples, graphs, and datasets by allowing IRIs, blank  
nodes and literals to appear anywhere as subject, predicate, object or  
graph name. 
""" 
 
 
AZ 
 
> predicates, and objects are all allowed to be IRIs, blank nodes, or 
> literals. A generalized RDF graph is an RDF graph except that the 
> triples in it are generalized RDF triples. A generalized RDF dataset is 
> an RDF dataset except that the graphs in it are generalized RDF graphs 
> and the graph labels are IRIs, blank nodes, or literals. 
> 
> This is by no means deathless prose, but any attempt to add literary 
> muscle ("can be", "its", ...) ends up being harder to grok. 
> 
> I oppose moving this section from Concepts to Semantics. 
> 
> peter 
> 
 
 
--  
Antoine Zimmermann 
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol 
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 
158 cours Fauriel 
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 
France 
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/