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

RE: datatypes and MT (#rdfms-graph)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 19:28:53 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101057b818ca2a2c7d@[65.212.118.147]>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  > 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*
>
>If we're talking about triples here where literals are
>acting as subjects, then we need to base the triples
>on node identity, right?
>
>I.e. (presuming nodes with identical uriref labels are "merged")
>
>    statement = subject predicate object '.'
>    subject   = uriref | ( nodeID ':' literal ) | nodeID              
>    predicate = uriref
>    object    = subject | literal
>
>Note that only literal nodes that act as subjects must
>be specified for nodeID, otherwise, just use the literal.

Right. The P(++) and X (new X, not old X which is now URV) require 
that two different occurrences of the same literal be 
distinguishable, so they require this kind of use of nodeIDs on 
literal nodes. The other proposals (S, DC and oldX=URV) don't need 
this complication, however, since they can assume tidiness on literal 
nodes as well as urirefs.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 20:28:48 EST

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