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

Re: I guess it's a stupid questions.

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:33:30 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0411141033c7bda0d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tanel Tammet <tammet@staff.ttu.ee>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, info@oilit.com, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Petko Petkov <ppetkov@linuxmail.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

I've often had doubts, but haven't yet really encountered any
situation for which the lack of RDF contexts/quads has been a killer.
Having said that, I suspect named graphs could make life easier by
providing a fairly intuitive but well-defined kind of contextuality:

http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/

Inconvenience isn't really the core issue with reification, it just
doesn't really do quite what's expected/wanted at the RDF level. But
context can be done in a way that is RDF-friendly and useful without
needing quads though - check the good Mr. Beckett's approach in
Redland:

http://librdf.org/notes/contexts.html

Were XML docs the reason for their being no 'context'? Unlikely is my
guess, I vaguely remember higher expectations of reification. Anyone
happen to remember?

I notice MCF had 'layers' which seems a similar idea:

http://www.guha.com/mcf/mcf_spec.html

Some related notes:

A story about RDF and XML
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/rdf-xproc/1

Why Is RDF The Way It Is?
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/200407/swintro/syntaxdesign.html

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2004 18:33:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:56 UTC