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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:57:36 -0400
Message-Id: <200109281657.MAA17662@tux.w3.org>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[erroneously caught in spam trap -- trying to diagnose -rrs]

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEDLCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [])
	by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA19565
	for <w3c-rdfcore-wg@www19.w3.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [])
	by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10365
	for <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:54:40 -0400
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [])
	by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/ HPLabs Bristol Relay) with ESMTP
id LAA03259
	for <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:37:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: from carrollj2 (carroll-j-2.hpl.hp.com [])
	by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub)
with SMTP id LAA07897;
	Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:37:33 +0100 (BST)
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Pat's MT has not been limited (much) by RDF.xml syntax.

He has left open the question of whether Literals are Resources.

While he does not have bNodes as properties, what he has done could be
cleanly embedded within such a treatment.

Hence, I feel that the MT has been both fair with the past and fair with the
future. Fair with past by taking a clean reading of M&S while not going
further than necessary to do that. Fair with the future in leaving open
those steps that strike us as attractive, without forcing them on future

Personally, I would favour making changes to the XML syntax to allow all of
Pat's models to be expressed.

I could propose representing bNodes in rdf:about and rdf:resource as
"_:name".  This is not a URI, since '_' is not a legal scheme name, hence is
technically an extension of the syntax. (whether a uri-reference appears
allow a uri-reference or a bNode-reference ). I believe in practice it would
be found to be backwardly compatible. (Only pedants check uri-refs against
RFC2396). I haven't a clue how to address the property not ending in an
XMLName character problem.

Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 12:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC