Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>> The key lack right now is any standard way to refer to a 'part' of an 
>> RDF graph from the outside.
> 
> That, too. That sort of stuff would mandate naming every triple/binary 
> predicate, and inventing a system of referring to huge sets of those in 
> a URI. Not doable.

I don't see why naming triples is not doable, nor why having huge
collections of triples isn't either, we already have native lists in RDF.

 From the perspective of a triplestore it ought to be optimisable (There
is no need for them to represent it as triples internally), and in
serializations sugared-syntax would be sufficient to make it usable.

My reply to the original post explains some of the reasons I think we
cannot do without meta-triples.