- From: Marcus Cobden <lists@marcuscobden.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:02:38 +0000
- To: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
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.
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 17:03:16 UTC