W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2013

Re: More clearly warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard

From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:21:57 -0700
Message-ID: <52000965.1000005@marklogic.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:31 UTC