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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:47:51 +0200
Message-ID: <413224D7.4040501@gnowsis.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


>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.
>
>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:"
>  
>

and why can't we change this?

reification syntax is "not practical" as we see above in the thread. So 
why can't we change the RDF spec and add a quad spec, together with a 
RDF/XML and N-3 serialization.

who wants this, too?

Leo
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2004 18:48:01 UTC

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