Re: let's allow the same terms everywhere, esp in triple patterns

Dan Connolly wrote:
> w.r.t.
> The set of triple patterns is
>     (RDF-U union RDF-B union V) x (RDF-U union V) x (RDF-T union V)
>   $Revision: 1.137 $
> Let's make that
>     (RDF-T union V) x (RDF-T union V) x (RDF-T union V)
> True, literal subjects and bnode predicates won't match any graphs
> made from RDF/XML documents, but the RDF Core WG
>  "noted that it is aware of no reason why literals should not
>   be subjects and a future WG with a less restrictive charter may
>   extend the syntaxes to allow literals as the subjects of statements."
>    --

Dan - could you say some more?  What does it make easier/simpler/clearer/etc?  A 
pre-WD version had the more general form and there was WG review comment raised 
about it and it was changed to the current form [*].

As far as I can see, having a more general set of triple patterns only really 
effects one other definition where a match is a entailed graph under substitution.

I don't care about the subject allowing literals, as the text you quote does lay 
the ground work for later.  However, properties that are blank or literals are a 
much bigger step, not technically, but in architecture, as URI-named 
relationships are an important building block.  I'd like to take this step more 

I have made a note in the editors' draft pending the review of the definitions

cwm allows bNodes and literals for properties (tested with cwm 1.0.0).  Is this 
used much?


     (and a telecon IIRC).

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 15:28:44 UTC