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

Re: RDF/XML and named graphs

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:45:52 +0000
Message-Id: <8994267A-1968-45AD-8563-FEE26D869C09@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Is there any real advantage to this over using xml literals? Or even  
string literals? (We did try xml literals for OWL-S but tool support  
was weak...)

I don't see how this helps with, e.g., axiom annotations esp. as it  
stuffs all the triples into the parent file as well. (Which I take it  
is for backwards compat with current parsers? Warn that there's this  
funky attribute and then drop the named graphs?)

Decent thing about the literal approach is that it can be layered  
ontop of existing parsers.

Also, things in named graphs can be spread out throughout a file  
instead of clumped.

(And wouldn't it be nice to add property elements with a generic  
rdf:predicate rdf:predName="" bit of syntax so that we can capture  
all RDF graphs and have relatively XML friendly serializations and....)

(Oops, was that the sound of a can of triples^H^H^H^H^H^Hworms  
opening? ;))

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 14:44:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:19 GMT