W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: reification vs. named graphs

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:00:33 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0708140400j4b8da6c2ge19c15dfd29c4fc7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Story Henry" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>, semantic-web@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com

On 14/08/07, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On 14 Aug 2007, at 10:24, Story Henry wrote:
>
> >
> > Does the current standard not in fact allow graphs through the use
> > of XML/RDF literals? If an RDF document contains a relation
> > pointing to an RDF/XML literal, then that RDF/XML is playing
> > somewhat the role of a graph, no? I mean it is opaque in the same
> > way a graph is...
> [snip]
>

[snip]

I brought this up somewhere fairly recently and someone (thought it
might have been idickinson on #jena, but apparently not...), pointed
me to Jena Assemblers  which use this kind of thing, e.g.

eg:literal-content-example
    ja:literalContent "_:it dc:title 'Interesting Times'"
    .
http://jena.sourceforge.net/assembler/assembler-howto.html

> A solution, nevertheless, worth investigating.

Yup.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 11:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT