Re: Another try.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:44:56 +0000, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> said:

    > If I understand the quad proposal, then all existing
    > vocabularies are technically undefined because they never define
    > P(S,O,G), only P(S,O).

Back in December, I experimented with a tuple-store that understood a
variant of n-triples (mostly as an exercise in learning Haskell
properly). It had datatypes of URI, Bnode, Literal and Nil and
supported predicates of any arity.

Is it useful define such a nil value and say:

  For all (P, S, O), P(S,O) -> P(S,O,nil)

Does this connect to SPARQL's idea of a default graph in a useful way?

-w