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

RE: Reification - whats best practice?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:22:39 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1C44@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <larsga@ontopia.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Lars Marius
> Garshol
> Sent: 27 August, 2004 18:02
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Reification - whats best practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | Well, leaving RDF/XML aside, it doesn't seem very difficult to
> | create an XML syntax where the reification is done without having to
> | create global identifiers for the statements.
> 
> * Patrick Stickler
> | 
> | For an XML serialization of RDF graphs with explicit support for
> | named graphs (which provide for indirect support for scope, context,
> | provenance, trust, etc.) in addition to being XSLT and 
> XQuery friendly
> | c.f. TriX: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-56
> 
> I'll do that.
> 
> If the description of your and Jeremy Carroll's presentation at
> Extreme had spelled out what "naming of graphs" did I would have
> attended it, and known about this already. As it was I skipped it,
> thinking it was a good thing, but that I didn't need to see it. Oh,
> well.

Well, the focus of that presentation was more about a serialization
that was more compatible with general XML tools, rather than its
support for named graphs.

But have a look at the above reference. It's all there.

Patrick


> 
> -- 
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: 
> http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 15:23:30 UTC

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