- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:30:18 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:01:59 -0600, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 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) > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ > $Revision: 1.137 $ > > Let's make that > (RDF-T union V) x (RDF-T union V) x (RDF-T union V) AndyS commented later about as URI-based relationships as being fundamental to interoperability of the semantic web. Best not change that lightly. > 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." > -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects One problem I see we have with such a change is that we could build results that cannot be serialized since we use graph pattern (set of triple patterns) in CONSTRUCT. This would be a legal query with your change CONSTRUCT ( "foo" _:a "bar" ) which is not an RDF graph result and none of RDF/XML, N-Triples or Turtle allow it to be serialised. There are a variety of ways to fix this, all not appealing - extend one or all of the syntaxes, create a new RDF syntax, make one syntax required and the only way to serialize such extended rdf graphs, drop the CONSTRUCT format. [My software could handle RDF+ models, but I don't let it, since it's an RDF system] Dave
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 12:31:34 UTC