Re: editorial guideline: representing triples

Lets allow time for feedback.  Maybe decide Friday?

Brian

At 13:28 10/07/2002 -0400, Frank Manola wrote:
>Some questions/comments about this:
>
>1.  Are we going to vote on this, or should I just go ahead and make the
>change (I don't object, I just want to know whether to do it now, or
>wait for a vote)?
>
>2.  What are the "standard prefixes" you want in there?
>
>3.  I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "legal n-triples"
>(presumably referencing a definition of what those are) and then say
>we're using them but with a whole bunch of differences in the syntax
>(I'm assuming people reading the Primer haven't encountered n-triples,
>or any other kind of triples, yet).  I'd propose to say something like
>that we can record RDF statements by simply writing down the triples of
>the subject, predicate, and object URIs (or literals, in the case of
>objects);  this produces long triples, and for the rest of the document
>we'll simplify those triples by introducing the qname abbreviation.
>
>4.  If you don't use angle brackets, you can't handle "this document"
>references (<>) and fragments (<#pat>) the way TBL does in his N3 Primer
>(assuming we wanted to do that).
>
>--Frank
>
>Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> > It has been suggested that we adopt a common notation across all the specs
> > for representing triples.
> >
> > I suggest we use legal n-triples with the addition that a URI can be
> > represented as a qname without angle brackets, e.g.
> >
> >    _:a rdf:type rdfs:Class .
> >
> > The notation should be explained in the primer which should include a list
> > of standard prefixes.  The other documents should reference the description
> > in the primer.
> >
> > Brian
>
>--
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 14:59:13 UTC