- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:49:25 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
- CC: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham is right as to why we went to graphs. However, I don't think anything *really* allows us to avoid dealing with the scoping issue; it's just that how things ought to work seems more intuitive with empty nodes. But we still ought to say what we need to say, and if we do it, I suspect pretty much the same text would explain bNodes. --Frank Graham Klyne wrote: > 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 ... >> -- 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 Thursday, 11 October 2001 08:45:02 UTC