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

Re: Graph naming?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:52:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20040224.075257.40962603.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: gk@ninebynine.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Graph naming?
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:06:35 +0000

> 
> 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:
[...]
> 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

Well, not so far, at least.  You can create syntax extensions until the
cows come home.  The proof of the pudding is in the meaning, however.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 07:53:08 UTC

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