- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:00:28 +0100
- To: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 10:31 AM 5/21/01 +0100, David Allsopp wrote: >They may not make sense though - what about collections? If you remove >the rdf:type property then the collection isn't valid RDF. If you remove >the rdf:_2 property leaving only _1 and _3 then I guess the collection >isn't valid. So the triples are not all independent. This is a problem >of RDF in general, not N3 though. I don't see that removing rdf:type makes it invalid RDF. I do tend to agree that rdf:_1 and friends are a problem, for the reasons you suggest. I think Dave Beckett and Brian McBride's interpretation of containers [1] reasonably overcomes this. #g -- [1] http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues/containersyntax/current.htm ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 11:34:29 UTC