- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:49:34 +1000
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
On 5/02/2020 08:40, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > I don't see how RDF* can stay compatible with RDF: > > A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI > reference, or URIref), a literal, or blank (having no separate form of > identification). Properties are URI references. > > https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-URI-Vocabulary I share this concern. It is impractical to introduce a completely new node type without breaking a lot of code and tools. This is why, at least for the time being, we are using what could be considered a hack, encoding triples as URIs: http://datashapes.org/reification.html#uriReification No approach is ideal, but this here is the most incremental, realistic route for us. The ugly long URIs would typically be hidden, e.g. behind a syntax like Turtle* and SPARQL* which we are trying to implement for our platform's next major release. (And yes, whether these long URIs should use namespace prefixes is another open question which we may need to revisit). Holger
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 23:49:42 UTC