Re: RDF* vs RDF vs named graphs

And as I wrote[1] on 29-Aug-2019:

 > My main concerns:
 >
 > - It must be easy to make statements about an entire
 > graph -- a set of triples -- rather than one triple
 > at a time.  At present RDF* does not allow this, but
 > my understanding is that it could be extended to do so.
 > IMO this is critically important.
 >
 > - It should be harmonized with other existing mechanisms,
 > such as named graphs and N3's ability to talk about graphs.

1. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2019Aug/0038.html

David Booth

On 11/29/20 5:52 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> I was rasing the same point re. named graphs some time ago:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2020Feb/0011.html
> 
> 
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 23.44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I've been thinking about the expressive power of RDF* related to the
>     expressive power of RDF, at least the versions of RDF* that have
>     been proposed
>     so far.
> 
>     As far as I can tell anything that can be done in RDF* can be easily
>     done in
>     RDF by using standard
>     RDF reification techniques, perhaps slightly modified (e.g., to
>     account for
>     malformed literals), with extra properties linking to syntactic
>     encodings to
>     achieve referential opacity.
> 
>     But named graphs are more expressive than RDF* in a certain sense,
>     as named
>     graphs allow multiple "embedded" triples to be collected together.
> 
> 
> 
>     peter
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 30 November 2020 00:06:23 UTC