- From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:12:51 -0500
- To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <cawelty@gmail.com>
Peter, Alan, > > > By the way, it appears to me that the RDF metamodel allows > > > regular (unreified) triples (RDFStatement) to be missing a > > > subject, predicate, or object, which is not allowed in RDF. > > Where is this prohibition stated in RDF? > > > > -Alan > I'm quite amazed that this question was even asked. The entire > notion of RDF is built around graphs of triples, which, as triples, > have to have all three elements. > 6.1 RDF Triples > > An RDF triple contains three components: > > * the subject, which is an RDF URI reference or a blank node > * the predicate, which is an RDF URI reference > * the object, which is an RDF URI reference, a literal > or a blank > * node BTW, the question above would not come up without review of the ODM metamodel. It gives a less ambiguous description of the above, which is just text that doesn't have the detail of "must", and "at least one", etc. This is another reasong it is critical to have community-wide agreement on the OWL and RDF metamodels, rather than multiple ones from multiple standards bodies. We won't get to that agreement by ignoring each other's metamodels. Issue 82 was worded specifically for harmonization, rather than divorce. This is a perfect time to do it, before finalization of the ODM and recommendation of OWL 1.1. Conrad
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 17:13:45 UTC