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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040826080924.A1303@skutsje.san.webweaving.org>

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Chris Bizer wrote:

>
> 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.
> >
>
> Really?
>
> 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.

it could work if you assume your graph-name is a URI - but it might not be
the case - and you might want eventually reference-by-description to
those graphs (then the graph might be a bNode)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0328.html

or you have a stronger argument about it - i.e. why graphs can not be bNodes?

cheers

Alberto
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 15:26:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC