W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:06:27 +0200
Message-ID: <01d501c48b7e$42e74750$0f8d2da0@wrz03295>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Karsten Otto" <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

From: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> > ... and you can even get them quite easily into RDF/XML, simply by
> > allowing rdf:about/rdf:ID/rdf:nodeID on the <rdf:RDF> wrapper.
> > Although there are some good arguments for a completetly different
> > serialization syntax such as TriX...
> We thought of that.  But slipping in such a huge change to RDF
> in an existing syntax wasn't where we ended up.
> I noticed that Named Graphs extends RDF in at least two ways:
> 1) RDF triple subjects can be literals
> 2) RDF triples are quads (sic)
> so it's really Named non-RDF Graphs.


A collection of RDF/XML documents on theWeb map naturally into the abstract
syntax of Named Graphs, by using the first xml:base declaration in the
document or the URL from which an RDF/XML file is retrieved as a name for
the graph given by the RDF/XML file.

So there is no problem with using Named Graphs as internal storage model for
a provenance aware RDF repository and still using RDF/XML to import and
exchange data. TriX and TriG are only making the data exchange more


> For reference, RDF triples are defined at
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-triple
> starting "An RDF triple contains three components:"
> Dave
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 15:06:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC