W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

best way to write triples (was RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-04-19)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:36:28 +0100
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMELNCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

What we've actually used is N-triples + (informal) namespaces.

I think an introduction to such an informal notation in the primer, in which
we identify all the namespaces used anywhere in any of the documents would
be OK. ANd then all the documents that want to use the notation. MT is
special because it needs mathematical variables but that's cool, I think the
current text is aimed at a mathematical audience (e.g. starting from section
0) and is clear for such an audience.

e.g.

[[[
In the RDF recommendations examples are often written down in an informal
triples notation. This is related to the N-triples notation used in the test
cases but uses abbreviated namespaces, as in XML qnames, rather than full
URIrefs.
For example, the n-triple:

<http://example.org/#foo> <http://www.w3.org/-the-rdf-url#type>
<http:the-rdfs-url#Property> .

is informally written as:

<eg:foo> <rdf:type> <rdfs:Property> .

Other namespace abbreviations used in the examples are:
  rdfd
  dc
  ...
]]]

and similarly in the MT Pat could extend this informal notation with
variables.

Informal != unclear.

Jeremy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Frank Manola
> Sent: 19 April 2002 12:04
> To: RDF Core
> Subject: Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-04-19
>
>
> I'd like something clarified about this.  First, isn't Test Cases
> normative?  If it is, excluding N-triples creates a bit of a problem
> doesn't it?  Second, isn't what's normative in RDF the graph in the
> mathematical sense?  Both N-triples and the drawings are legitimate
> representations of (mathematical) graphs aren't they?  Finally, it seems
> to me the WG has been fairly consistent in acting as if using N-triples
> actually clarified things.  If that's true, they ought to be great in
> examples!
>
> --Frank
>
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-04-18 22:38, "ext bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com"
> <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>11: How to represent triples in documents.
> >>Propose that triples should be represented using correct n-triples.
> >>
> >>
> >>See:
> >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0251.html
> >>
> >
> > I wouldn't want to see n-triples in the general examples. In the MT
> > section(s) they are more concise than XML, but I've been thinking that,
> > if n-triples are not normative, then we shouldn't have them in any
> > normative sections.
> >
> > Thus, we should use only RDF/XML and graphic representations in the
> > normative sections of all specifications.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > --
> >
> > Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
> > Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
> > Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 Friday, 19 April 2002 07:37:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:33 EDT