Re: Literals as predicates (was: Re: Blank nodes as predicates Re: Blank Nodes Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal)

Thanks mate.

And for Graphs I see:
" • Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI or a blank node (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset."
(https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-named-graph)
So that means that the Graph position (in a quad) can't be a Literal, I guess :-(
And even Blank nodes are problematic in SPARQL.

Mind you, I have never understood (© Hugh Glaser :-)) why I can't just specify quads in SPARQL.
Or maybe that is essentially what "GRAPH ?g { ?s ?p ?o }" is a longhand for.

> On 23 Nov 2018, at 10:46, Andreas Harth <andreas@harth.org> wrote:
> 
> On 11/23/18 12:28 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> Pat, presumably if I can have literals in subject position, I can have them in the predicate position too?
>> That would be great (I have no idea what it means, but it would still be great not to have to explain another exception :-) )
> 
> RDF 1.1 already defines a generalised triple as UBL x UBL x UBL [1], whereas ter Horst's definition of a generalised triple is UB x UB x UBL [2] (page 18, formula 26).
> 
> Best regards,
> Andreas.
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf
> [2] http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/download/66/64
> 

-- 
Hugh
023 8061 5652

Received on Friday, 23 November 2018 12:29:02 UTC