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

Re: Recursive graphs?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:21:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4030B5C5.2050205@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Cc: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


This is basically the same apart from disallowing strucures that nest 
within themselves?

On the surface syntax, which is what was driving the TriX papers, the 
nesting is too ugly (IMO). But this sort of constraint might be the best 
way to address some of the difficulties.

Jeremy



Benja Fallenstein wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> | One could have a convention where the first graph is always asserted,
> | and may simply be a single statement that the second graph is not
> | asserted ...
> 
> Please don't shoot me for throwing another idea into this discussion;
> perhaps it's un-thought-out, but my intent here is to understand the
> options and your thinking on them better.
> 
> You have already established that you're willing to change the abstract
> syntax so that the graphs in a 'graphset' can share anonymous nodes with
> each other.
> 
> How about instead changing it so that a graph can contain other graphs?
> Or, to be precise, in addition to triples, a graph can contain the
> following kind of pair:
> 
> ~    (<node>, <set of triples and pairs>)
> 
> which means that <node> is a graph containing exactly <set of triples
> and pairs>. Let's call these "child graphs." The set of blank nodes is
> shared between a graph and its child graphs.
> 
> The problem of assertion would be solved by only considering child
> graphs as asserted for which the surrounding graph contains an
> "asserted" triple.
> 
> This would also solve the syndication problem, in that you could always
> incorporate a graph and its child graphs into a larger graph.
> 
> Also, it would mean that an application/trix+xml or whatever file would
> be interpretable as a graph, and thus be on a similar semantic level as
> existing RDF files, rather than as a set of graphs.
> 
> On the downside, it's ugly. But remember, I've mostly raised it to
> understand the arguments here better. So, what's the semantic problems
> with this proposal?
> 
> Cheers,
> - - Benja
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFAK9deUvR5J6wSKPMRAuO5AJ9sYcjISBWonkoHQjPj0zNkMmdovQCgipgQ
> DJyz9sYWOUK9MAPJoHTwPho=
> =1DJr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 08:42:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC