- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:19:03 -0400
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, "tim.glover@bt.com" <tim.glover@bt.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Danny Ayers wrote: > On 3/31/06, John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote: > > But I believe that >> anything that has been done with RDF could have been done sooner, >> better, and with much greater efficiency with an XML tag that >> says LANG=TupleList followed by an enclosed list of tuples in >> the form (and with the option of n-ary tuples as well): >> >> (R1 a b) (R2 c d) (R3 e f) (R4 g h) ... > > A little PS. - > > A mail [1] just showed up in my inbox, referring to Matrix URIs [2], > an idea of Tim Berners-Lee's from 1996 and apparently back on the > desirable list. Here's an example: > > [[ > //moremaps.com/map/color;lat=50;long=20;scale=32000 > > might be the URL of an automatically generated map. > ]] > > Looks rather n-ary, don'tya think? > > What did we need XML for again..? ;-) > Well, we didn't *need* XML to do RDF either, did we? We could always have used a notation involving lots of nested parentheses instead, clearly such *vastly* superior notation to XML that it's surprising no one thought of that before :-) About these URIs, let's see: * whose definition of, say, "scale" are we using? or is this always the "home" vocabulary (//moremaps.com/scale), and then, how do I mix vocabularies? URIs for the properties would deal with that (but then things get longer). * if the idea is that the "hierarchical" part of the URI (see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/MatrixURIs.html) is always the "subject" being qualified by the rest, as in this case (the map is being described using the attributes "lat", "long", and "scale"), then this is an abbreviation of the "triples": //moremaps.com/map/color lat 50 //moremaps.com/map/color long 20 //moremaps.com/map/color scale 32000 right? Or is something more complicated going on? * If the notion of n-tuple to be used *labels* each position in the tuple as this one does, rather than relying on position to determine which value goes with which attribute, this makes things easier when I want to send them around the Web. Otherwise, I'd need access to the definition of the relation in order to determine which was which. E.g., if I had a tuple (ignoring the need for URIs for the moment) of the form map(50, 20, 5000) how do I know that 50 is a lat rather than a long, and 5000 is a scale rather than, say, an altitude? I'd always need to look up the definition of the map relation, right? And suppose I didn't happen to have a value for longitude? map(50,,5000)? * any discussion of substituting general n-ary relations for binary relations for the RDF application calls for some examination of the subject of normal forms in relational database designs, as well as that of primary keys, which I will leave for a later day. --Frank
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 21:14:56 UTC