- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:19:02 -0600
- To: William Waites <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>
- CC: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>, public-egov-ig@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
hello. > We have rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object but > there is no such thing as rdf:graph to mention the fourth element. I've > invented an equivalent, but does anyone know if there is such a > predicate defined anywhere? Is it worth attempting to suggest an update > to the core rdf vocabulary to have this added (also with a commensurate > rdf:Graph class)? > We are lacking in tools for talking about graphs in rdf itself it seems... i think this is the grand debate about RDF2 and whether named graphs should become part of RDF itself. thanks for your thoughtful email, you described it much better than i was able to do it. the point is that RDF triples in the current RDF world have no coherence, you might find them in various "documents" at various URIs, or all in the same triple store; semantically, there is no difference. for metamodels with a "document" level, there is coherence, and it matters in which document you find a substructure of some data. this is what i wanted to say by saying that "RDF has no documents", but you explained it in a much better way. thanks! cheers, dret.
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 00:20:31 UTC