- From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:21:57 -0700
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Is it the case that N3 is a syntax for "generalized RDF"? I'm bringing this up as a way to tie some concepts together; Notation-3 was recently put to me as a syntax for a superset of RDF, and it looks like the same superset that the term "generalized RDF" introduces. Charles On 08/05/2013 01:08 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 02/08/13 17:50, David Wood wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 12:42, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> (why is this discussed on "comments"?) >> >> It shouldn't have been. My fault. >> >> >>> >>> JSON-LD does not allowed the full range of "generalized RDF". >> >> >> Does any existing spec or implementation? > > I don't know of one that has literals-as-predicates, which is not to > say there aren't any. > > I'm sure many systems implement this at the core level because > internally they simple store term/term/term, but it's not visible to > applications. > > Literals-as-graph-names (which is in the original N-quads BTW) came up > as a question recently: > > http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/23833/formulate-sparql-query-upon-n-quads > > > dates/datetime for the quad label > > Andy > >> Regards, >> Dave >> -- >> http://about.me/david_wood > > -- Charles Greer Senior Engineer MarkLogic Corporation charles.greer@marklogic.com Phone: +1 707 408 3277 www.marklogic.com
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 20:22:20 UTC