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

Pat Hayes wrote:
> Quick thought regarding your reply (and others). I think we are thinking about g-boxes subtly differently. You seem to be assuming that a g-box is *always* liable to change. I have been assuming that many g-boxes will be static and simply emit the same graph text every time. (So calling them a 'box' might be misleading.) In fact, a text can BE a static box, just as an HTML file can BE a rather boring website. 

yes, that it *might* or *might not* change, not specifically that it's 
always liable to, just that you don't know for sure that it won't.

that said..

> So what we need, maybe, is some way to *say* that a box is static. Suppose we have a specified class of things called static g-boxes. Then we can say 
> gname:thisBox rdf:type rdf:static .
> to ensure that its content will not change. It can even say this itself, in fact. And then we can put a text in it and be sure that it won't evolve on us while we aren't looking. And then we can refer to texts without having to quote them.
> OK, maybe its worth having graph literals as well. I still think this is a useful idea, however. 

yes, I agree it's a useful idea.


Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 16:12:52 UTC