W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: generalized RDF comment from David Booth

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:27:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4-HxHxsM7fT+jky_2wx5R7kvbAhXoeGgkEx1boextqxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Cc: RDF-WG Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2 October 2013 17:20, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Le 02/10/2013 16:44, Patrick J. Hayes a écrit :
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Yes, looks good.
>
>
>
>> BUT is it correct to allow literals as graph names? This is not required
>> by any generalization I know.
>
>
> I have use cases for it, but even if it was not the case, it should be
> allowed, if only to avoid having in the future "generalized generalized RDF
> datasets" where it would be allowed.

Great, I can put RDF descriptions of the graphs in as generalised
graph-name literals then.

e.g. "<Document><author>...</author><truthyness>7</truthyness></Document>"

(runs, hides)

Dan

> AZ
>
>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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/
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 16:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 October 2013 16:28:29 UTC