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 
could comment.  

But Turtle currently does not allow inverse property notation:
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.

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