- From: Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:48:42 +0100
- To: "Ruben Verborgh" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "Hydra" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi Ruben
>So unfortunately, you are not binding the resource to the graph,
>because RDF 1.1 semantics don't let you.
>That's exactly my problem, and nanopublication's, too.
Indeed - RDF spec doesnt touch that issue. We could use i.e. rdfg:Graph to
denote that <graph://a> is a graph, but still it would be on the vocabulary
level rather than RDF internals.
>BTW, any particular reason for preferring a separate meta graph,
>over letting graphs describe themselves, like the following?
><graph://a> {
> <graph://a> foaf:primaryTopic <http://a> .
> <http://a> some:value "" .
>}
As I wrote, RomanticWeb is a tool, thus it was easier and more efficient to
have a single "special purpose" graph that can be queried than to have it
scattered around the dataset. I feel it's also less polluting.
Regards
Karol
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 14:49:07 UTC