- From: Tomasz <fumugami@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 18:07:54 +0200
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Hello, I'm just an outsider that has recently seen that there is work on an RDF 1.2 going on and that this new version contains a new construct called a "triple term", which might be an object, although another document, I think for N-triples or N-quads also permitted it as a subject. I have also read a bit of messages in this mailing list and would like to share my thoughts. I would propose to define an RDF term as one of either: a blank node, an IRI, a triple term, or a literal. Then define an RDF triple to be a tuple of 3 RDF terms: a subject, a predicate and an object, with no further resrictions on syntax, but rather say that it is undefined how to interpret a predicate that is a literal, for example. Then an RDF graph is a set of RDF terms plus a list of references to them that asserts them, making them into RDF statements. This would allow to make statements such as: :S [ lpg:onProperty :P; :propC "C" ] [ :propD "D"] . :S :propA "A" ; :propB "B" . lpg:Resource a rdfs:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource . lpg:Property a rdfs:Class , rdf:Property ; rdfs:subClassOf lpg:Resource , rdf:Property ; rdfs:domain lpg:Resource ; rdfs:range lpg:Resource . lpg:onProperty a rdf:Property ; rdfs:domain lpg:Property ; rdfs:range rdf:Property . which models this LPG thing I have just read about, I believe. You could also make statements such as: "apple"@en :translatesTo "jabłko"@pl . <<("apple"@en :translatesTo "jabłko"@pl)>> :accordingTo :Me . :NotMe :disagreesWith <<("apple"@en :translatesTo "jabłko"@pl)>> . A named graph is represented as: :graph :contains <<( :a :b :c ; :d :e , :f )>> . :graph :asserts <<( :a :b :c )>> . which parses into: :graph :contains <<( :a :b :c )>> . :graph :contains <<( :a :d :e )>> . :graph :contains <<( :a :d :f )>> . :graph :asserts <<( :a :b :c )>> . et cetera... Implementation-wise, it's easier to parse since all terms have the same syntax and internal structure after parsing. I think it would be generally easier to work with such a structure. In the future more types of terms could be added if needed. Just my two cents, Tomasz Bye and have a nice day.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2024 16:09:10 UTC