- From: Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:47:43 +0100 (CET)
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, <3.org@dr-nick.w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hello,
while you are at it, you could go one step further and allow the extended
rdf:RDF wherever rdf:Description can occur. I believe this was suggested
some time ago on this list as a way to represent N3 formulas in RDF/XML.
Regards,
Karsten Otto
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> 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 09:47:51 UTC