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

Graph naming?

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:06:35 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040224100627.02cec060@127.0.0.1>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, 3.org@dr-nick.w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

At 00:06 24/02/04 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>While at it, I'm still doing well without additional
>notation for naming graphs. For the normal case of flat
>graphs written in rdf documents with uri's it is quite
>obvious for an engine to keep track from where it got a
>specific triple.

This reminds me of one of those simple ideas that's been kicking around my 
head for a while, but I don't think I ever expressed...

Notation3 (as I understand it) has a simple way of creating named graphs 
within a document;  the idiom I use is:

    uri :- { <formula> }

It would be a small extension, I think, to do something similar with RDF/XML:

    <rdf:RDF rdf:ID="foo">
      :
     (RDF statements)
      :
    </rdf:RDF>

or

    <rdf:RDF rdf:about="uri">
      :
     (RDF statements)
      :
    </rdf:RDF>

Thus, an RDF element might be treated as a syntax construct for a node that 
happens to be a graph.

Is this conceptually broken in any way I haven't noticed?

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 05:31:02 UTC

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