- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 23:13:50 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 05/08/13 21:21, Charles Greer wrote: > 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. There are differences between what the N3 (submission) defines and what cwm implements. 'Literals as properties' is one of these. The grammar in the submission allows it but if you us them, cwm generates an error: "Cannot have a literal as a predicate. This makes no sense" Andy > > 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 >> >> >
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 22:14:19 UTC