Re: silly question about rdf:about

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>

Well, doesn't this say more than just the triple? It also asserts the existence of
the reification of the triple. Beyond that, by connecting rdf:Assertion to truth,
you open the door to things that folks like Pat don't like ...

I still think rdf should have chosen s-expressions to represent the graph ...

>  <rdf:RDF>
>      <rdf:Assertion>
>         <rdf:subject rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." />
>         <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." />
>         <rdf:object rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." />
>      </rdf:Assertion>
>   </rdf:RDF>
>
> [each of those three properties could have had a literal value instead.]
>
> This structure has the advantage of allowing serializations that the
> traditional RDF/XML syntax prohibits.   All it requires beyond RDF M&S
> is the definition of rdf:Assertion as a subClass of rdf:Statement
> which has the semantics that any assertion described must be taken to
> be as true as the description.
>
> > If we had such, it would be another way to avoid distraction by serialization
> > details.
>
> I'm with you on that.    But some people ARE very focussed on the
> details of the RDF/XML syntax, and I thought I would nudge them a
> little more towards simplicity.
>
>     -- sandro