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

Issue rdf-equivalent-representations

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 19:26:08 +0000
Message-ID: <3BF2C550.6090201@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Issue

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-representations

[Equivalence]: There are four RDF model "flavours" (formal/data model, 
graph(ical) model, serialization syntax, triple). To what extend (precisely) are 
these models (not) equivalent? (Problems related to anonymity have been 
discussed, see also below, details need to be summarized). Could trying to find 
transformation grammars be a solution (preciseness, determination of 
equivalence)? Shouldn't this be in a "formal" part of M&S spec?

Propose that

   o The WG believes that:

      - the graph model which is the basis for the model theory
      - the n-Triples representation of an RDF graph
      - the diagrams of graphs used in documents such as the RDF Model
        and Syntax document

    are all equivalent.

   o The WG notes that the RDF/XML syntax as currently defined is unable
     to represent an arbritary RDF graph.  In particular, the RDF/XML syntax
     cannot fully represent a bNode which is the object of more than one
     statement.

   o The WG believes that extending the RDF/XML syntax so that it can respresent
     all RDF graphs is beyond the scope of its current charter and resolves
     to postpone consideration of this issue.

   o The WG actions the editor of the RDF Syntax WD to include in that
     document a clear statement of the RDF graph structures that RDF/XML is
     unable to represent.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 14:25:54 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:40 EDT