W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Well Behaved RDF - Taming Blank Nodes, etc.

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:42:27 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, aemallea@ing.puc.cl, axel.polleres@deri.org
Message-ID: <1355517747.24606.6236.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 15:14 -0500, Ivan Herman wrote: 
[ . . . ]
> I think it would still be better to explain these things in a syntax
> independent way. After all, I may want to use JSON-LD or RDFa...
> 
> Distilling the various mails and concentrating on bnodes only, what
> seems to be the pattern is 
> 
> - bnodes can appear in at most one triple as an object
> - there can be no cycle in the graphs involving bnodes
> 
> Would that suffice as a more formal definition?

As of today I think that would suffice, though I'm unsure of the details
of how the "no bnode cycles" constraint should be formalized.  Perhaps
Jeremy Carroll or one of the authors of 
http://web.ing.puc.cl/~marenas/publications/iswc11.pdf
could comment.  

But Turtle currently does not allow inverse property notation:
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95
If that feature were added and the syntax independent definition were
still going to track what can be expressed in Turtle without explicit
bnodes, then the definition would get more complex.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 20:43:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:38 UTC