W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:59:58 +0000
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Pvd2U-0000j0-Ui@barney.w3.org>

RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5

Raised by: Sandro Hawke
On product: RDF Graphs

We could define datatypes, such as ser:rdfxml and ser:turtle, whose
lexical space is the set of valid document strings in RDF/XML, Turtle,
etc, and whose value space contains the corresponding RDF graphs.

This would allow people to use ordinary RDF tools to express facts involving RDF graphs, such as that some graph was obtained from some URI at some point in time, or that some person claims some graph is true or false.

This would address some of the use cases for quads, reification, named
graphs, etc, with a mechanism that is very simple to understand and
relatively easy to implement.

Languages (like Turtle and RDF/XML) could be extended to provide
syntactic sugar for these literals, much as Turtle provides a nicer
syntax for numbers, but that is not necessary for these literals to be
useful and is not part of this proposal.

Some discussion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0130.html
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 22:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC