RE: tracing statement origin (was Re: I have a trouble with The R DF Model)

I've been out and have been trying to catch up on this discussion.

I was kinda wondering how it got here.  I have this idea stuck
in my head that the syntax is there to represent the model, not
the other way round.  So if I turn a model into an XML serialization,
I'd like to be able to get exactly that model back again from a 
parser, without it feeling a desparate need for it tell me about
the structure of the XML serialization.  Now if a parser offers
me a choice, thats fine.  But I don't see anything in M&S that
says a parser MUST generate all that structure.

Shouldn't simple things be simple.

Brian

PS: if I wanted to filter the bags and stuff out again, how would
I do that?

B



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> Sent: 27 November 2000 21:16
> To: Gabe Beged-Dov
> Cc: Stefan Decker; pat hayes; RDF-Logic; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: tracing statement origin (was Re: I have a 
> trouble with The
> RDF Model)
> 
> 
> Gabe Beged-Dov wrote:
> 
> > Ground Statement:
> >  [Bush, wonThe, Election]
> >
> > Reified Statement Resource:
> >  [ECResults#id1, type, statement]
> >  [ECResults#id1, subject, Bush]
> >  [ECResults#id1, predicate, wonThe]
> >  [ECResults#id1, predicate, Election]
> >
> > Syntactic context for Reified Statement Resource:
> >  [ECResults#bag1, rdf:_1, ECResults#id1]
> >  [ECResults#bag1, type, Bag]
> 
> What, again, was the use of (need for) the bag here?
> 
> Sorry, this discussion for me to follow without missing things.
> Seth Russell
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 14:06:56 UTC