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

Re: RDF graph model limited by RDF/xml 1.0 syntax?

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:52:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011010164853.04666080@joy.songbird.com>
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:17 AM 10/10/01 -0400, Art Barstow wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:00:32AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Having thought it over, I think the syntax for the model
> > theory should be, more or less, n-triples:
> >
> > An RDF graph is a set of triples <S, P, O>; each
> > of S, P, O is a term; a term is either an absolute
> > URI reference, a bNode, or a literal.
>
>+1!

Having seen some of the confusion that has arisen, I'm sort-of inclined to 
agree...

>   This is so simple and elegant that it makes me want to cry
>with joy!

... but I think we should not forget that the graph approach was introduced 
to avoid the bNode scoping issue.  If bNodes are used, then their scope 
needs to be clearly stated, and I think that some (probably awkward) text 
will be needed to explain what happens when two separate documents that 
happen to use the same bNode names are combined and/or asserted simultaneously.

#g
--

>This just leaves us with the problem of how to define and
>constrain RDF/XML ...
>
>Art
>---

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 12:25:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:59 EDT