RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

Syntactic comments only ....

> We 
> could encode this in N-triples by having two ways to terminate a 
> triple, so that
> 
> ex:judy ex:age ex:whatever .
> 
> is an asserted triple but
> 
> ex:judy ex:age ex:whatever ;
> 
> is an unasserted triple. 

I would prefer

- <subj> <pred> <obj> .

as an unasserted triple.


> I confess to having no idea how to represent 
> something analogous to this in RDF/XML, however.


Liar, (or should that be "balls" :) )
You came up with a number of proposals that all seem fine.

My early preference is ...

> 
> Another possibility is to allow certain namespaces to be declared to 
> be dark, so that any triple using a property from a dark namespace is 
> considered to be unasserted. Again, this does not require any change 
> to the syntax, but only some extra conventions to be added to the 
> language. 
> 

This could be a namespace prefix rather than the namespace e.g.


<rdf:RDF xmlns:eg="http://example.org/" xmlns:egdark="http://example.org/"
         rdf:darkPrefixes="egdark">
     <rdf:Description eg:aserted="foo" egd:unasserted="bar" />

</rdf:RDF>

Jeremy