W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: rdfms-graph: Food for thought

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:58:12 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010712115356.0492bec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 01:01 PM 7/11/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>Here's some questions (with proposed answers) to get us thinking about 
>rdfms-graph. I'm also curious whether there are other questions that 
>should be considered part of the resolution -- the issue description isn't 
>really enough for me to tell.
>
>1) Does an RDF graph have a URI?
>
>It is a Resource, and it can. M&S does not define a specific one.

I agree.  I'm not sure anything more needs to be said.  Any such URI is not 
part of the abstract syntax/model.

>2) Is an RDF graph a set or a bag?
>
>A set, as it has conjunctive assertion semantics, or whatever they're called:
>         (A && A) => (A)

Again, I agree.  I'm not sure anything more needs to be said.

>3) Can a node exist in a graph without any properties?
>
>Yes. This is indicated in the current XML syntax with an empty Description 
>element.

Here, I disagree:  there is no obvious way to represent an isolated node in 
an abstract syntax/model based on triples.  I think an empty <Description> 
adds nothing to the semantics so should not appear in the abstract 
syntax/model.

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 07:36:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:09 EDT