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

Re: datatypes and MT (#rdfms-graph)

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:14:02 -0500
Message-ID: <3BF27C2A.4020303@mitre.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:

> Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>Dan,
>>
>>would it break your mental model if the above N-triples-like syntax was
>>modified to be:
>>
>>         terms:
>>                 constant (URIs w/fragids)
>>                 string literals
>>                 bnodes (existentially quantified variables)
>>         statement:
>>                 term constant term.
>>         formula:
>>                 statement*
>>
>>?
>>
> 
> Umm... mental model... dunno. It involves 2 changes:
> * no literals in the property slot. no great loss there...
> 
> * no bnodes in the property slot. Real loss of functionality.
> I don't have a strong argument that it was ever there, but
> I use it quite a bit, and I expect there are things we
> want to model with RDF that won't work without it.
> (in particular: languages with n-ary functions/relations).


Dan--


Could you send (or point to) one of your examples of bnodes in the 
property slot used for n-ary relations?  If this is legit, I think 
something should be said about it in the Primer (e.g., in the section on 
"Complex Data").  Also, something ought to be said about this approach 
in whatever replaces the current section 7.3 of the M&S, which describes 
"the recommended technique" for representing n-ary relations in RDF as 
using an intermediate bnode subject/object, rather than a bnode predicate.

--Frank

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 09:08:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:39 EDT