W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Klyne Contexts: 3. Statements sets in RDF

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:41:41 -0000
Message-ID: <007a01c071d8$c31b6140$2e50893e@dehora>
To: "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonas Liljegren" <jonas@rit.se>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>

: > It seems to me that, given an RDF graph, I should be able to extract
: > an arbitrary subgraph (i.e. a subset of the statements) and still have
: > a valid RDF graph.  The RDF approach to containers doesn't permit
: > this, because (I think) the following is not valid per RDF M&S:
: >
: >     [Foo] --rdf:type--> [rdf:Bag]
: >     [   ] --rdf:_1----> [Member1]
: >     [   ] --rdf:_3----> [Member3]
:
: I say that it must be valid.  I would even allow:
:
:      [Foo] --rdf:type--> [rdf:Bag]
:      [   ] --rdf:_1----> [Member1]
:      [   ] --rdf:_1----> [OtherMember1]
:      [   ] --rdf:_3----> [Member3]
:
:
: This because anyone can say anything about everything.

Jonas is right but not only for that reason. The RDF numeral identifier
scheme
doesn't come with the everyday semantics people associate with numbers,
specifically numeric ordering. They are just tokens that happen to be
confusing to the human reader. Seq does require ordering though. I like to
see this sceheme dropped, it seems to bend the readability req of XML (it's
very readable but very confusing), but what would replace it?

-Bill de hÓra
Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 15:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT