# more N-triples (Was RDF Statements as floating Cons Cells)

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:53:30 +0100

Message-Id: <OF77037457.23270211-ON41256A66.004693A2@bayer-ag.com>
```
>>...
>>Pat wrote:
>> > Maybe we should stick to using RDF as a simple ground-data language,
>> > and just build or use something else altogether for doing more
>> > complicated stuff.
>>
>>Well maybe or maybe not (what was that again?)
>>I'm still thinking about 'transistors' (*) and
>>trying to build 'logic circuits' without them
>>(but maybe my teachers brainwashed me too much)
>>
>>--
>>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>>
>>(*) 'some'-things like e.g.
>>             -----
>>    is----->|  s  |
>>     |       -----
>>   -----   p   -----
>>  |     |---->|  o  |
>>   -----       -----
>
>This can be done, sure, but unless we can do it in a way that alows
>the 'relational' interpretation of RDF triples as well as the
>construction/circuit sense, then we are just using RDF as an
>implementation language, and judged on that basis it isn't
>particularly useful (IMHO). Whereas it is clearly of utility for
>interchanging ground relational data. So, rather than try to make it
>be all things to all men, let us just optimise it for a relatively
>humble, but valuable, intended use and move on to other things for
>other purposes, was my point.

Thanks for the
can be done, sure
I think that both interpretations
the 'relational' interpretation of RDF triples as well as the
construction/circuit sense
are easy to achieve.
That C-triple
[ is :s; :p :o]
which is actually the pair of N-triples
_:a is :s.
_:a :p :o.
is a 'cons-triple'
The '[ is' can be seen as a 'cons' of a 'car', the 'subject'
in and a 'cdr', the 'predicate object'.
And it is indeed giving us a 'cons'struction block
for 'logic circuits'.
In logical speak, I would think about the _:a as
the _:a stands for :s
AND has property :p with value :o
at least subject and object are recursively 'cons'struct-able

The interpretation of
[ has S1; has S3]
is the term denoting the logic conjuntion
S1 & S2.
(shorthand in N3 is {})

At the top level we can say
:s :p :o.
or
[ is :s; :o :p] a log:Truth.

Also
If an arc points to an anonymous term, then it
is there 'by value' so to speak (not 'by reference').
Of course one could point to constant terms
and universally quantified terms used in those
subgraphs, but they are 'leafs' or at the 'subgraph
boundaries' so to speak.

It is quite obvious that higher level notations
can/should be used (I would not feel comfortable
to build a PentiumIV at transistor drawing level).

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/

ps you can measure N-triples output at an RDF-parser's testpin
```
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 08:53:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT